Miss. Power Co. v. Hanson
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02689-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02689-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-06-2005 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Counterclaim - Successor in interest - M.R.C.P. 25(c) - Attorney’s fees Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-10-2003 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Donald Patterson Disposition: Enterred Hanson's motion to dismiss his action against MPC, SCS, IFN and ITC with prejudice. Case Number: 02-00922 |
|
| Note: | Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Mississippi Power Company filed by counsel for Herbert C. Hanson, Jr., is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Power Company and Southern Company Services, Inc. |
PAUL RICHARD LAMBERT
BEN HARRY STONE
JONATHAN PAUL DYAL
RODERICK MARK ALEXANDER, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Herbert C. Hanson, Jr. | C. VICTOR WELSH, III FLOYD J. LOGAN |
|
|
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 - Counterclaim - Successor in interest - M.R.C.P. 25(c) - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Herbert Hanson, Jr., filed a petition for permanent injunction against Mississippi Power Company, Southern Company Services, Inc., Interstate Fibernet, Inc., and ITC Delta Communications, Inc., asserting claims for trespass, unjust enrichment and injunctive relief resulting from IFN's third- party use of MPC's fiberoptic telecommunication line across Hanson's property. SCS sought dismissal of Hanson's claims with prejudice and all costs assessed against Hanson. MPC filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration of its rights with respect to its installation, maintenance and use of its telecommunication lines and facilities including, but not limited to, allowing third parties to utilize portions of the capacity of its telecommunication lines, including the line located on Hanson's property. IFN and ITC sought to have Hanson's petition for permanent injunction dismissed with all costs assessed to Hanson. Motions for summary judgment were filed by MPC, SCS, IFN and ITC. Due to outstanding discovery at the time the motions for summary judgment were filed, Hanson filed a motion to compel discovery and abate the motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative for time to respond. The parties entered into a scheduling order setting time to complete discovery and designate experts. The trial court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment and amended the scheduling order. Hanson filed a motion to dismiss his action filed against MPC, SCS, IFN and ITC with prejudice. The court initially denied Hanson's motion to dismiss, however, it subsequently entered its opinion granting Hanson's motion to dismiss his action against MPC, SCS, IFN and ITC with prejudice. MPC filed its notice of appeal raising the issue of whether the trial court erred in dismissing its counterclaim for injunctive relief. MPC alleges that it did not receive adjudication as to the claims raised in its counterclaim. SCS also filed its notice of appeal regarding the court's denial of its ore tenus motion for attorney's fees, costs and expenses. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Counterclaim MPC argues that the court erred by not addressing its counter-claim despite dismissing Hanson's lawsuit with prejudice, because Hanson’s son and transferee will now be able to pursue further litigation against them on the same issues raised in these proceedings filed and dismissed by Hanson. However, the trial court specially made a determination of MPC’s rights and determined that M.R.C.P. 25(c) and res judicata operate to alleviate the concerns raised by MPC regarding Hanson’s successor in interest. The comments to M.R.C.P. 25(c) state that if the property is transferred the judgment is binding on the successor in interest, even if not named at the time of the judgment. Issue 2: Ore tenus motion SCS argues that the court erred in denying its ore tenus motion for attorney's fees, costs and expenses associated with its defense. SCS maintained that it should not have been named as a defendant by Hanson as it was not the parent company of MPC and had no easements or fiber optic telecommunications lines in Mississippi. The court granted the dismissal of Hanson's claims with prejudice and determined the dismissal of Hanson's claims to be a final adjudication in favor of SCS. The court was in the best position to consider SCS's motion and did not abuse its discretion in denying SCS's motion for attorney's fees, costs and expenses. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
