Hayes, et al. v. Leflore County Bd. Of Supervisors
| Docket Number: | 2004-CT-00759-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-00759-COA ; 2004-CA-00759-COA ; 2004-CT-00759-SCT ; 2004-CA-00759-COA ; 2004-CT-00759-SCT ; 2004-CA-00759-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-17-2006 Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND RENDERED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEFLORE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Motion to intervene - M.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) - M.R.C.P. 58 - M.R.A.P. 4(i) Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., EASLEY, CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): DIAZ AND GRAVES, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: RANDOLPH, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-16-2003 Appealed from: LEFLORE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: William Willard Disposition: Dismissed Wolfe's suit with prejudice, which is challenged by Appellant |
|
| Note: | The supreme court found that the action in which Hayes wanted to intervene no longer existed at the time he filed his petition for intervention, and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the chancellor’s order denying Hayes’s motion to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2). See originial COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO28394.pdf The motion for rehearing is denied. The original opinion is withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted therefor. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JACK HAYES AND GEORGE S. WHITTEN, SR. |
GEORGE S. WHITTEN, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | LEFLORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS | WILLIE JAMES PERKINS, SR. |
|
|
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: | Motion to intervene - M.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) - M.R.C.P. 58 - M.R.A.P. 4(i) |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. An order entered into the minute books of the Leflore County Board of Supervisors reflected that all five members of the Board agreed to authorize the exchange of lands between Leflore County and two companies, Goldkist and Scott Petroleum. Phil Wolfe, a member of the Board, claimed the Board never considered, discussed, nor approved the order, and filed a petition for injunctive relief in the Leflore County Chancery Court against the Board and Leflore County. Wolfe requested that the trial court purge the order from the minute books and enjoin the enforcement of the order, or in the alternative, remove his name from the recorded vote. While Wolfe’s case was pending, Southern States Cooperative purchased the land that was the subject of the order. Because Wolfe’s suit was a cloud on Southern’s title to the land, Southern filed a separate suit to quiet and confirm title and named Wolfe as a defendant. In an agreed order, Wolfe agreed to dismiss any claims pending in his Open Meetings suit against the Board and County. In exchange, Wolfe would be released from Southern’s action. Thereafter, Harold Emerson, Jack Hayes, and George Whitten filed a motion to intervene in Wolfe’s Open Meeting suit. They alleged the order was not an action taken by the Board and requested an injunction commanding the Board to purge the order from their minutes, or a decree that would strike the order from the Board’s minutes. The chancellor entered an order dismissing Wolfe’s action with prejudice. When the Hayes group challenged the dismissal in a motion for relief, the chancellor responded by noting the order in Southern’s suit wherein Wolfe had agreed to dismiss his open meetings suit. The chancellor ruled that the Hayes group had no basis for the motion to intervene because Wolfe had agreed to dismiss his suit. The Hayes group appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hayes argues that M.R.C.P. 58 and 79(a) exclude the chancellor’s reasoning to deny Hayes’ motion to intervene, i.e., that an agreed order (containing an agreement to dismiss a separate suit) which is entered on the docket in one suit does not operate to dismiss the separate suit. While Rule 58 is important for establishing a date for computing post-trial motions and appeals, the rule is not the only means by which to effect a dismissal, especially where the parties have stipulated to dismiss a separate case, even though the stipulation is located in an order entered in a separate suit. The order in the Quiet Title suit in which Wolfe agreed to dismiss his suit against the Board sufficiently disposed of the Open Meetings suit for purposes of a motion to intervene under M.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) since the matter being litigated was resolved. Hayes also argues that M.R.A.P. 4(i) authorizes post-judgment intervention. However, the rule requires an “adverse judgment or order.” Because Wolfe dismissed his suit against the Board, no judgment in favor of or against the Board was possible. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
