Moorehead v. Hudson, et al.
Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00558-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-00558-COA |
|
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Property damage - Timber trespass - Joint liability - Section 95-5-10 - Damages Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick, P.J. and Griffis, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-31-2003 Appealed from: UNION COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: James L. Roberts Disposition: HELD ONLY THE SELLERS OF THE TIMBER LIABLE FOR THE TIMBER TRESPASS AND NOT THE LOGGING COMPANY Case Number: 96-0322 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Robert W. Moorehead |
WILLIAM M. BEASLEY
REBECCA L. HAWKINS |
||
Appellee: | Anthony Ray Hudson, Sr., Susan Annette Hudson and R.L.H. Logging, Inc. | WILLIAM O. RUTLEDGE, III GEORGE MARTIN VIA |
|
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: | Property damage - Timber trespass - Joint liability - Section 95-5-10 - Damages |
Summary of the Facts: | Robert Moorehead discovered that timber had been harvested from a portion of his property without his consent. He filed suit in chancery court to quite title to the property and to recover damages for the timber trespass, naming Anthony Hudson, Sr., Susan Hudson and R.L.H. Logging, Inc. as defendants. The chancellor awarded Moorehead a judgment against the Hudsons totaling $40,318.08. R.L.H. Logging was awarded a judgment against the Hudsons for attorneys fees in the amount of $7,016.75. Moorehead appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Joint liability Moorehead argues that the court erred in finding that R.L.H. Logging's conduct was solely attributable to the actions of the Hudsons. To recover under section 95-5-10, the owner of the timber must only prove ownership of the timber and that the timber was cut down, deadened or destroyed or removed by the defendant or the defendant's agent without the owner's consent. The statute specifically excludes "good faith" as a defense to timber trespass. By participating in the tree harvest, R.L.H. Logging falls within the purview of the statute and accordingly should share liability for the timber trespass. Issue 2: Damages Moorehead argues that he is entitled to the additional damages outlined in section 95-5-10(2) which provides for additional damages when the removing or deadening of trees is done willfully or in reckless disregard for the rights of the owner of the tree. Because good faith is not a defense to timber trespass, the chancellor should have made a separate determination as to R.L.H. Logging's liability under section 95-5-10(2). Therefore, chancellor's decision awarding damages against the Hudsons only is reversed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court