Sabal Corp. v. Howell
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00423-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00423-SCT ; 2002-CA-00423-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2003 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Garnishment - Relief from judgment - Fraud - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(1)- Adverse party Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-23-2001 Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court Judge: Frank G. Vollor Disposition: JUDGMENT FOR HOWELL AGAINST SABAL CORPORATION, GARNISHEE-DEFENDANT. Case Number: 00,0172-CI (V) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Sabal Corporation |
JAMES L. PENLEY
|
||
| Appellee: | Shelby Howell | KATHLEEN MARIE FITZGERALD M. JAMES CHANEY |
|
|
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: | Garnishment - Relief from judgment - Fraud - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(1)- Adverse party |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Shelby Howell obtained a judgment against Bill Hillman, she filed a writ of garnishment against Sabal Corporation which Hillman claimed was his employer. Sabal’s president swore by affidavit that Hillman received no remuneration from Sabal nor was he an employee. The judge ordered Sabal to pay the amount Hillman owed to Howell. Sabal sought to have the judgment set aside, and the court denied the motion. Sabal appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Sabal argues that the court erred in failing to set the judgment aside, because the judgment was procured by fraud, misconduct, and misrepresentation. Under M.R.C.P. 60(b)(1), the party moving for relief must establish by clear and convincing evidence the alleged fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by an adverse party. Because Sabal was adverse to Howell, not Hillman, in this proceeding, the court properly denied the motion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
