Camacho v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00737-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CP-00737-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-26-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Dismissal of action - M.R.C.P. 41(b) Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Lee and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Bridges and Myers, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-31-2001 Appealed from: Marshall County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Case Number: M00-356 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MARTIN G. CAMACHO |
MARTIN G. CAMACHO (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | CHANDELEUR HOMES, INC. AND MHP PROPERTIES, LLC D/B/A MID SOUTH LANDHOME CENTER | DAVID LEE ROBINSON WILLIAM F. SCHNELLER ALLISON FARESE THOMAS |
|
|
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 - Dismissal of action - M.R.C.P. 41(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Martin Camacho filed suit against Chandeleur Homes, alleging that he had experienced numerous problems with a mobile home which he purchased from MHP Properties, LLC, d/b/a/ Mid South Land-Home Center. The court dismissed his case with prejudice due to his failure to prosecute his claims, and he appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | M.R.C.P. 41(b) allows a defendant to move for dismissal of an action for the failure of the plaintiff to prosecute. However, dismissals under Rule 41 (b) should be executed reluctantly and will be affirmed only upon a showing of a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff and where lesser sanctions will not serve the best interests of justice. In this case, the judge found that Camacho had failed to obtain an attorney in a timely manner and that there was no good cause for such failure. However, there is no requirement that a party must be represented by an attorney. Therefore, dismissing a party's lawsuit simply because that party has not acquired an attorney is clearly an abuse of discretion. In addition, the period of delay (five months) in acquiring counsel was relatively short. Based on the record, there is no clear indication of delay or contumacious conduct on the part of Camacho, and even if there were, the record is clear that the judge did not consider other less severe sanctions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
