Sorey v. Crosby
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00950-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-26-2008 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Trial de novo - URCCC 12.02(C) - Default judgment - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Recusal of judge Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-03-2007 Appealed from: NEWTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, CROSBY, GRANTING EVICTION OF DEFENDANTS Case Number: 06-CV-246-NWG |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RUSH H. SOREY AND CHERI SOREY |
JERRY L. BUSTIN,
GAR NELSON SCHWIPPERT |
|
|
| Appellee: | JERRY CROSBY | JASON AVERY MANGUM | ||
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: | Real property - Trial de novo - URCCC 12.02(C) - Default judgment - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Recusal of judge |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rush Sorey and Cheri Sorey reached an agreement with Jerry Crosby whereby Crosby loaned the Soreys approximately $400,000, as well as other money as needed. The money was intended to be used to purchase a rodeo business to be called Rush Rodeo. The debt was secured by a deed of trust for four hundred acres of homestead property owned by the Soreys, as well as a cabin on the Neshoba County fair grounds. When the Soreys defaulted on the loan, Crosby began foreclosure proceedings. Crosby purchased the property at the foreclosure sale and received a trustee’s deed for the property. Crosby requested that the Soreys vacate the property, which they did not do. Crosby then filed a complaint in the Newton County Justice Court to remove the Soreys from the premises. Crosby prevailed in justice court, and the Soreys appealed to circuit court. After a trial in the circuit court, the Soreys were again ordered to vacate the premises. The Soreys appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Trial de novo Pursuant to URCCC 12.02(C), the Soreys were entitled to a trial de novo on appeal from justice court. The Soreys argue that because they were not allowed to make arguments regarding the events leading up to the foreclosure and a possible partnership between the Soreys and Crosby, they were denied a trial de novo. However, the record is clear that the only matter before the circuit court was the complaint to remove the Soreys from the property Any dispute as to the facts that led to Crosby obtaining the deed of trust and subsequent foreclosure was not properly brought before the circuit court, and the Soreys were provided a trial de novo. Issue 2: Default judgment The Soreys argue that the circuit judge entered a judgment that amounted to a default judgment, and the judge based his opinion on the appeal from justice court alone. The Soreys do not, however, cite any authority for any of these arguments. Failure to comply with M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) renders an argument procedurally barred. Issue 3: Recusal of judge The Soreys argue that the circuit judge should have recused himself from hearing the case, because he had pre-conceived opinions regarding the cause of action. If a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would doubt the judge's impartiality, the judge is required to recuse him or herself from the case. The Soreys have not presented evidence that the circuit judge abused his discretion in not recusing himself. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
