Payne v. Magnolia Healthcare, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01586-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01586-COA2005-CT-01586-SCT2005-CT-01586-SCT2005-ct-01586-sct |
|
| Oral Argument: | 05-15-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-04-2007 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-28-2004 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED Case Number: CI2002-163 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | VELMA PAYNE AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF MATTHEW SMITH,
DECEASED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE
WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES OF
MATTHEW SMITH, DECEASED |
CHARLES E. GIBSON
CHARLES J. SWAYZE |
||
| Appellee: | MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE, INC. D/B/A ARNOLD AVENUE NURSING HOME, FOUNDATION HEALTH SERVICES, INC. AND DIANE OLTREMARI | PATRICIA FLEMING KENNEDY CHRISTOPHER THOMAS GRAHAM MICHAEL A. HEILMAN |
|
|
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. |
|
| Summary of the Facts: | Matthew Smith was in the care of Arnold Avenue Nursing Home when he passed away. Magnolia Healthcare, Inc. owned and operated the nursing home. Velma Payne, Smith’s sister, became the administrator of Smith’s estate. Well before Payne became the administrator of the estate, a wrongful death claim was filed against Magnolia naming Payne as the plaintiff. Magnolia discovered that Smith was survived by a daughter, Rhonda Smith. Magnolia filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Smith’s surviving child, Rhonda, was the proper party to maintain an action for wrongful death, and that Payne was without standing to bring the action. The court granted the motion. Payne timely filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration. On March 11, 2005, the circuit court denied Payne’s motion to reconsider. Payne’s counsel argues that no notice was received of the March 11 order. Being uninformed, on May 16, 2005, Payne filed to add and join Rhonda as a real party in interest. Magnolia responded to Payne’s motion to add and join Rhonda. Magnolia did not mention the March 11 order, reflecting that neither Payne nor Magnolia had knowledge of the March 11 order. The circuit court entered two orders. The first order denied the motion to add and join Rhonda as a party. The second order denied Payne’s motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment granted to Magnolia. Payne appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Magnolia argues that the appeal should be dismissed because Payne filed the notice of appeal beyond thirty days from the entry of the March 11 order. M.R.A.P. 4(a) requires that a party file a notice of appeal within thirty days following entry of the judgment from which the appeal is taken. The time to file a notice of appeal starts running from the entry of judgment into the clerk’s records, and it is notice of the entry of judgment that must be given to the party. M.R.A.P. 4(h) deals with the reopening of the time for appeal. In this case, Payne filed a motion to add a party and an untimely notice of appeal, not a Rule 4(h) motion for reopening. The trial court entered orders denying Payne’s motion to add a party and Payne’s motion for reconsideration, not an order granting or denying a motion to reopen the time for appeal under Rule 4(h). Both parties concede that Payne filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the circuit court’s order granting Magnolia summary judgment. The entry of the March 11 order denying Payne’s motion to reconsider was stamped “Received & Filed” on March 11, signed by a person in the clerk’s office, and an entry was made on the docket reflecting the order as filed on March 11. The docket does not reflect that a copy of the March 11 order was sent to counsel. The March 11 order was valid when filed. The subsequent May 16 motion to add and join Rhonda and the circuit court’s June 9 orders were without effect because the dismissal of the action became final two months before. The orders of the circuit court made on June 9 did not void the March 11 order. Thus, the parties and the circuit court, being unaware of the previous March 11 order, entertained a matter that had previously come to a close. The March 11 order was not appealed within thirty days of its entry and the notice of appeal is, therefore, untimely. Payne argues that the 180 day window described in Rule 4(h) expired through no fault of her own. While the circuit clerk failed to notify the parties of the March 11 order as required by M.R.C.P. 77(d), our rules of procedure prove to be very unforgiving of a party who fails to timely file a notice of appeal, notwithstanding the clerk’s failure to give notice. It is mandatory under M.R.A.P. 2(a)(1) that an appeal untimely filed pursuant to Rules 4 or 5 be dismissed. Moreover, Rule 2(c) expressly prohibits the Court from relaxing our procedural rules in this case. This restriction is echoed in Rule 26 (b). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
