Hathcock v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02653-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 03-17-2005 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4 - M.R.A.P. 48B - Recusal of judge - Section 9-1-11 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-05-2003 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: The trial court denied Hathcock’s motion for relief. Case Number: A2401-000331 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MARK HATHCOCK |
JOE SAM OWEN |
||
| Appellee: | SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND ANTHONY CHRISTIAN | DALE GIBSON RUSSELL CHARLES G. COPELAND |
|
|
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: | Insurance - Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4 - M.R.A.P. 48B - Recusal of judge - Section 9-1-11 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mark Hathcock filed suit against Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company and Anthony Christian, for wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a business contract. After summary judgment was granted in favor of Farm Bureau, Hathcock learned of a potential conflict of interest involving the trial judge and Farm Bureau. Hathcock filed a motion for relief under M.R.C.P. 60(b) and Rule 1.15 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules requesting that the trial judge recuse himself and the order granting summary judgment be set aside. The court denied Hathcock’s motion, and he appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Timeliness of appeal Farm Bureau argues that Hathcock’s appeal is barred under M.R.A.P. 48B, which governs proceedings on a motion for disqualification of a trial judge, because he filed his appeal twenty-nine days after the trial court’s issuance of summary judgment. Under Rule 48B, when a circuit court judge denies a motion for his recusal, the moving party may, within fourteen days following the judge’s ruling, seek review of the judge’s action by the Supreme Court. M.R.A.P. 4, using the language “shall,” requires a party to file notice of appeal within 30 days, while M.R.A.P. 48B, using the language “may,” permits a party to seek review within 14 days. Hathcock’s appeal is timely because it was filed in accordance with M.R.A.P. 4. Issue 2: Recusal of judge Hathcock’s attorney claims he was informed that Jerry Terry, Jr., son of Judge Terry, was employed in a supervisory capacity in the Regional Claims Office in Laurel. Hathcock argues that Judge Terry should have recused himself because of his prior representation of Farm Bureau and his son’s employment relationship with Farm Bureau. To overcome the presumption that a judge is qualified and unbiased, the evidence must produce a reasonable doubt; that is, one must question whether a reasonable person, knowing all of the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality. Section 9-1-11 provides that the judge of a court shall not preside on the trial of any cause where the parties shall be connected with him by affinity or consanguinity, or where he may be interested in the same, or wherein he may have been of counsel, except by the consent of the judge and of the parties. Had the Legislature desired to include prior representation of a party as grounds for disqualification, it could have chosen to do so. There is no evidence that Judge Terry is connected with the parties through marriage or blood or that Judge Terry may have had an interest in the outcome of the proceeding, or that he is otherwise precluded by the statute. There is no evidence presented by Hathcock showing that Judge Terry’s son had a legal interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding. Therefore, no objective reasonable person would conclude that Judge Terry was not impartial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
