Farmer v. Richardson
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01659-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01659-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-11-2007 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed & Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Malicious prosecution - Res judicata Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): IRVING, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Barnes, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: King, C.J., Chandler and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-28-2006 Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF RICHARDSON Case Number: 96-0455-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | TERRY FARMER AND WIFE, BRENDA FARMER |
WILLIAM L. DUCKER |
||
| Appellee: | RICHARD DALE RICHARDSON | WILLIAM E. ANDREWS |
|
|
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: | Malicious prosecution - Res judicata |
| Summary of the Facts: | Terry and Brenda Farmer entered into a lease purchase agreement with Richard Richardson to purchase certain land in Lamar County. When the agreement expired, Richardson asked the Farmers to vacate the premises. The Farmers bought a tract of land adjacent to Richardson’s land. Both parties filed numerous legal actions against the other in the years after the lease purchase agreement expired. The parties also engaged in physical confrontations. The Farmers filed a complaint in circuit court against Richardson seeking damages for malicious prosecution, harassment, damage to their reputation, false imprisonment, abuse of process, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of wages, and medical expenses. Terry filed a complaint for injunction in the chancery court. The chancellor entered an agreed temporary judgment with injunction ordering the parties to refrain from harassing the other or interfering with the quiet enjoyment of their property. The chancellor also noted that the prior civil action filed in circuit court had been consolidated with the claim in chancery court and that the issues concerning damages and the boundary line dispute would be heard at a later date. The chancellor also appointed a surveyor to establish the boundary line between the parties’ land. To resolve land access issues an easement was drafted by both parties, approved by the court and recorded. Meanwhile, Clyde Farmer, Terry’s father, filed a suit against Richardson for damages arising from the physical altercation among Terry, Clyde and Richardson. This matter was eventually submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favor of Richardson and the cause was dismissed with prejudice. On December 30, 1999, an order dismissing the case was filed. On June 12, 2000, an agreed order reinstating the case was filed. Richardson filed a motion for summary judgment on April 3, 2001, claiming that there were no remaining issues to be litigated. The trial court granted Richardson’s motion for summary judgment. The Farmers filed a motion for clarification and/or for the court to construe the judgment. The trial judge found the judgment to be final as to all issues except as to damages, if any, sustained by the Farmers because of wrongful destruction to their water lines; damages, if any, sustained by Terry resulting from wrongful prosecution by Richardson; and damages, if any, sustained by the Farmers for personal injuries and property damage as a result of Richardson’s negligence or gross negligence. The trial court further ordered the Farmers’ attorney to serve process on Richardson as if a new cause of action had been filed. Summons was issued to Richardson on June 28, 2005, and July 11, 2005. On July 25, 2006, the chancellor entered an order of clarification and dismissal, finding that the Farmers’ claims against Richardson were res judicata. The chancellor determined that the acts on which the damages were based had been previously adjudicated. On August 28, 2006, the chancellor entered a final judgment dismissing all claims by both parties with prejudice. The Farmers appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Farmers argue that summary judgment should not have been granted in regard to their causes of action which are separate from Clyde Farmer’s lawsuit. Clyde Farmer’s lawsuit stemmed from the physical altercation among Terry, Clyde and Richardson. The arbitrator ruled that Richardson was not liable for any injuries to Clyde resulting from the fight. Part of Terry’s lawsuit concerns personal injuries sustained in this same altercation. The chancellor determined that there was privity between Clyde and Terry because both participated in the incident which precipitated Clyde’s suit and a portion of Terry’s suit. For res judicata to apply, four identities are required: identity of the subject matter of the action; identity of the cause of action; identity of the parties to the action; and identity of the quality or character of a person against whom the claim is made. In this case, the parties, the claim and the defendant are all substantially identical; thus, it was appropriate for the chancellor to dismiss Terry’s claim relating to the altercation with Richardson as res judicata. However, the chancellor erred in dismissing all of the Farmers’ claims as res judicata. Not all of the Farmers’ claims resulted from the physical altercation with Richardson. The Farmers’ claim of damages for destruction of their water lines and Terry’s claim of damages for wrongful prosecution by Richardson are separate and distinct. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
