Bert Allen Toyota, Inc. v. Grasz
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00748-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-23-2007 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT REGARDING BOND AND ENFORCEMENT IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Jurisdiction - Filing of notice of appeal - Costs of appeal - M.R.A.P. 36(a) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): IRVING, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-17-2004 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Sanford R. Steckler Disposition: MOTION TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT GRANTED. Case Number: C2401-03-1252 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | BERT ALLEN TOYOTA, INC. |
TIM C. HOLLEMAN |
||
| Appellee: | HORST F. G. GRASZ | DALE ROBINSON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Jurisdiction - Filing of notice of appeal - Costs of appeal - M.R.A.P. 36(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | In Bert Allen Toyota v. Grasz I, 909 So. 2d 763, 771 (ΒΆ26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the Chancery Court of Harrison County's order awarding specific performance of a contract for Grasz's purchase of an unused 2003 Toyota Tacoma truck from Bert Allen Toyota for $15,017.50. The Court remanded for a determination of whether Bert Allen Toyota could not provide an unused 2003 model truck, with instructions for the chancery court to fashion another equitable remedy if the court found Bert Allen Toyota could not provide an unused 2003 model truck. While that first appeal was pending, Grasz filed a "Motion for Bond or in the Alternative Motion to Enforce Judgment." Prior to resolution of the first appeal, the trial court entered a "Judgment Regarding Bond and Enforcement" finding that, because Bert Allen had not moved for a stay of the judgment ordering specific performance, the judgment was enforceable. Bert Allen moved to set aside the judgment and also moved for a stay. The court denied the motion to set aside the judgment and granted Bert Allen's motion for a stay. Bert Allen appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction of a matter from the lower court to the appellate court, divesting the lower court of authority to amend, modify, or reconsider its judgment. However, though an appeal is pending, the appellee may execute on the decree in the lower court, providing the appeal is without a supersedeas bond and that the court does not in any way broaden, amend, modify, vacate, clarify, or rehear the decree. At the time that the chancellor entered the Judgment Regarding Bond and Enforcement, all posttrial motions had been disposed of and Bert Allen Toyota's appeal without supersedeas was pending. Though the chancery court was empowered to determine the issues concerning a stay of the final judgment, bond, and enforcement of the judgment, the chancellor was without jurisdiction to broaden, amend, modify, vacate, clarify or rehear the final judgment. Therefore, those portions of the "Judgment Regarding Bond and Enforcement" and the "Order Denying Motion to Set Aside and Granting Stay With Bond" that order Bert Allen Toyota to provide Grasz with a truck from a model year subsequent to 2003 or with a current model year truck are void. However, reversal little avails Bert Allen Toyota, since Bert Allen Toyota remains subject to the chancellor's broad remedial powers following remand of the first appeal. For this reason, the costs of this appeal are fairly assessed to Bert Allen Toyota pursuant to M.R.A.P. 36(a). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
