Fiddle, Inc. v. Shannon, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CA-01953-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 01-02-2003
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: Affirmed on Direct Appeal and Cross-Appeal

Additional Case Information: Topic: Refund of taxes - Jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-51 - Jurisdiction - Section 21-33-79 - Section 21-33-83 - Costs - M.R.C.P. 68
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Waller, Diaz, Carlson and Graves, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, J.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: State Boards and Agencies

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-05-2001
Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court
Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts
Disposition: The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Appellee, and the trial court denied the Appellant's motion for costs.
Case Number: 00-CV-123(R)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Fiddle, Inc.




WALTER T. ROGERS



 

Appellee: Stanley A. Shannon, Lauderdale County Tax Collector, City of Meridian, a Municipal Corporation, and Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors, Lauderdale County, Mississippi J. RICHARD BARRY MICHAEL WAYNE STRAHAN  

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: Refund of taxes - Jury instructions - Sufficiency of evidence - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-51 - Jurisdiction - Section 21-33-79 - Section 21-33-83 - Costs - M.R.C.P. 68

Summary of the Facts: Fiddle, Inc. filed suit against Stanley Shannon in his official capacity as Lauderdale County Tax Collector. The complaint was later amended to include Lauderdale County and the City of Meridian as additional defendants. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which was denied. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction which was also denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Fiddle appeals, and the defendants cross-appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jury instructions Fiddle argues that the court’s refusal to grant two of its jury instructions denied it the opportunity of presenting to the jury the issue of whether it was entitled to a refund of erroneously paid ad valorem taxes and that there were sufficient facts in the record for the jury to find that Fiddle mistakenly paid the total amount requested by the deputy tax collector. The jury instructions offered by Fiddle seek to collect a refund only upon Fiddle's contention of a unilateral mistake. However, the jury could not have possibly found that Fiddle was entitled to a refund without determining that the Tax Collector made a mistake or error in collecting the tax. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence The record shows that neither the tax collector nor the deputy clerk could remember the parcel at issue, nor did the tax collector have any written records showing what each bidder purchased. Therefore, the denial of Fiddle's motion for J.N.O.V. or, in the alternative, a new trial was not error. Issue 3: Statute of limitations The defendants argue that payment of the taxes occurred when Fiddle presented its check for payment on August 28, 1997, and therefore, Fiddle's claim was time barred when filed on September 7, 2000. Because Fiddle had no right to demand repayment of any monies paid as required by section 15-1-51 until either September 9 or September 11, 1997, when the bank paid the check and debited Fiddle's account, the action was brought on a timely basis. Issue 4: Jurisdiction The defendants argue that Fiddle did not follow the proper procedure for bringing its claim before the circuit court, because Fiddle's only avenue to circuit court was to appeal the denial of the request for a refund rather than filing suit against the tax collector. Sections 21-33-79 and 21-33-83 do not exclude a taxpayer's right to file suit. Issue 5: Costs The defendants argue that the court erred in denying their motion to assess costs against Fiddle pursuant to M.R.C.P. 68. M.R.C.P. 68 is designed to encourage settlements, avoid protracted litigation, and protect the party who is willing to settle from the burden of costs that subsequently come. Because there was no judgment obtained by Fiddle to trigger the Rule 68 cost-shifting procedure, the court did not err in denying the motion.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court