King v. Pike County Nat'l Bank


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01098-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-27-2007
Opinion Author: CARLTON, J.
Holding: This appeal is dismissed as moot.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contempt - Frivolous appeal - M.R.A.P. 38
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-21-2005
Appealed from: WALTHALL COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: W. Hollis McGehee, II
Disposition: MOTION FOR CONTEMPT DISMISSED
Case Number: 2005-0002

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: LADONNA KING




JAMES A. WILLIAMS



 

Appellee: PIKE COUNTY NATIONAL BANK AND RUTH KING C. ASHLEY ATKINSON, MARK R. HOLMES  

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: Contempt - Frivolous appeal - M.R.A.P. 38

Summary of the Facts: LaDonna King obtained a loan from Pike County National Bank. The Bank filed a security interest in collateral pledged by LaDonna which included several vehicles and a tractor. When LaDonna defaulted on the loan, the Bank filed a complaint in replevin against LaDonna and Ruth King, LaDonna’s mother, to recover the collateral on the loan. Ruth filed a motion to hold LaDonna in contempt of an agreed temporary order between Ruth and her former husband, David, which provided in part that “neither party shall dispose of any assets of the parties without the Court’s consent.” The court dismissed Ruth’s motion to hold LaDonna in contempt and granted the a judgment of possession to the six vehicles securing the loan. LaDonna appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: LaDonna argues that the chancellor committed reversible error in dismissing the motion for contempt, because the agreed temporary order was not specific enough to allow it to be enforced against her in a contempt action. The chancellor found that LaDonna was not in contempt of court. The relief LaDonna now seeks would leave her in the same position. This issue is therefore moot. Ruth argues that damages should be awarded under M.R.A.P. 38 because the appeal is frivolous. Although the issue is moot and without merit, it is not frivolous.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court