Graves v. Dudley Maples, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01510-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-08-2007 Opinion Author: DIAZ, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Prescriptive easement - M.R.C.P. 59 - Attorney’s fees - Joinder of party - Subject matter jurisdiction - M.R.C.P. 12(h)(3) - Testimony by attorney Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): COBB, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-24-2004 Appealed from: George County Chancery Court Judge: Sanford R. Steckler Disposition: Found in favor of Appellee |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CARROLL GRAVES AND CATHY GRAVES |
JAMES H. HERRING |
||
| Appellee: | DUDLEY MAPLES, L.P., AND HANCOCK BANK, TRUSTEE, FOR THE A. F. DANTZLER, JR., TRUST | MARK ANTHONY MAPLES W. LEE WATT JOSEPH ANTHONY SHERMAN |
|
|
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 - Prescriptive easement - M.R.C.P. 59 - Attorney’s fees - Joinder of party - Subject matter jurisdiction - M.R.C.P. 12(h)(3) - Testimony by attorney |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dudley Maples, L.P. is a corporation that owns property. Sard-Mag Road is the only way one can reach the land-locked property. After Carroll Graves purchased property surrounding Sard-Mag Road, he blocked the road with a pile of debris. Maples filed a complaint for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction barring Graves from blocking the road. The court granted a TRO compelling Graves to reopen access to Sard-Mag Road to Maples. Despite the presence of a court order allowing them to use the road to reach the landlocked property, the designees of Maples were threatened with arrest by a constable if they continued down the road. Maples then moved for sanctions and attorneys’ fees. The A.F. Dantzler, Jr. Trust intervened through its representative Hancock Bank. The Dantzler Trust owns property directly east, west, and south of the Graves’ property, all of which was made inaccessible by Graves’ actions. Graves entered into a consent order with Maples and Dantzler in which he agreed to remove the debris pile and fence blocking Sard-Mag Road and reestablish the road. He agreed not to interfere in any respect whatsoever with the plaintiffs’ use of their properties and that plaintiffs could be granted attorneys’ fees and costs for any effort made to ensure compliance with the consent order. However, even after he agreed to abide by the order, Graves refused to honor its terms. Maples and Dantzler then petitioned the trial court for a mandatory injunction forcing Graves to comply with the terms of the agreed order, a citation of contempt for failure to comply, and attorneys’ fees for having to bring further legal action. Yet another order was entered by the trial court, again signed by attorneys for all parties, affirming all the terms of the previous order. The only question reserved was the request for attorneys’ fees, which was to be determined at trial. The trial court found that a prescriptive easement existed over Graves’ property. Graves was permanently enjoined from interfering with the use of the road by Maples, Dantzler, and their designees, invitees, and assigns. Graves was ordered to pay $3,200 to Dantzler and $2,500 to Maples in attorneys’ fees. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prescriptive easement Graves argues that the finding of a prescriptive easement was against the weight of the evidence. This issue was never raised in a motion to reconsider at the chancery court. The proper method to address any concerns about evidence would have been through a motion for a new trial pursuant to M.R.C.P. 59. In addition, the record is replete with the testimony of more than a dozen witnesses who testified to the historical use of the road by the public and adjacent landowners. Graves himself repeatedly agreed that it was not reasonable to block access to the road and that Maple and Dantzler should have access to the road. Graves also takes issue with having to pay the attorneys’ fees of Maple and Dantzler. This argument is procedurally barred as it was not raised in a motion to reconsider or motion for a new trial. Graves also agreed in the first consent order that he would pay the costs of any attorneys’ fees if he disobeyed the order. Issue 2: Joinder of parties Graves argues that the court should be reversed because Dudley Maples was not joined in the action as an individual. Not only does he fail to cite any cases in support of his argument, but the argument was never raised at trial or in any post-trial motion. He also argues that there may be a problem with subject matter jurisdiction. Under M.R.C.P. 12(h)(3), subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal. However, no justifiable basis exists for arguing that a chancery court does not have jurisdiction over matters involving property. Issue 3: Testimony by attorney Graves argues that it was reversible error to allow the brother and attorney of Dudley Maples to testify at trial. While it is generally undesirable to allow attorneys to testify in cases where they are counsel, permitting an attorney’s testimony at trial is not a ground for reversal. The record shows that Darwin Maples immediately ceased his advocacy on behalf of his brother when he was brought in to testify. In addition, Darwin Maples testified not for his brother and client, but for the Dantzler Trust. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
