Corp. Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene County
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01298-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-03-2009 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Jurisdiction - Statutory compliance - Section 41-13-15 - Contempt Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar and Kitchens, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Pierce, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-01-2008 Appealed from: Greene County Chancery Court Judge: T. Kenneth Griffis, Jr. Disposition: Chancellor determined that Greene County had complied with the statutory requirements necessary for offering a lease on a community hospital, and that CMI was in contempt, assessing attorneys' fees. Case Number: 2005-134-PN |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, INC. |
DARREN E. GRAY, JOHN R. REEVES, JOHN JUSTIN KING |
||
| Appellee: | GREENE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI | CHRISTOPHER GARRETT HENDERSON, HEBER S. SIMMONS, III |
|
|
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: | Contract - Jurisdiction - Statutory compliance - Section 41-13-15 - Contempt |
| Summary of the Facts: | This is the third appeal in a contract dispute involving the management of a county hospital and nursing facility by Corporate Management, Inc., a medical management company, and Greene County, Mississippi, through its Board of Supervisors. CMI appeals from a 2008, judgment, in which the special chancellor determined that Greene County had complied with the statutory requirements necessary for offering a lease on a community hospital, and that CMI was in contempt, assessing attorneys’ fees in the amount of $7,500. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction CMI argues that the 2008 judgment erroneously modified, altered, amended, and broadened the second amended final judgment without jurisdiction. Filing a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction from the trial court to an appellate court, thereby removing the trial court’s authority to amend, modify, or reconsider its judgment. When an appeal has no supersedeas bond, a party may execute on the judgment. However, the lower court cannot broaden, amend, modify, vacate, clarify, or rehear the decree. Here, the record reveals no supersedeas bond, nor does CMI claim that one exists. The trial court explicitly retained jurisdiction in the second amended final judgment and in the 2007 contempt order for the purpose of enforcing its judgments. Further, the special chancellor’s 2008 judgment merely enforced provisions of the second amended final judgment and did not broaden, amend, modify, vacate, clarify, or rehear the second amended final judgment. Issue 2: Statutory compliance To the extent that CMI argues that the trial court erred by finding that Greene County complied with paragraphs 3 and 4 of the second amended final judgment pertaining to the agreements between CMI and the GRHC trustees, or that the relief sought by CMI should be the implementation of a long-term management contract, based on provisions in the agreements and incorporated into the second amended final judgment, these arguments are without merit, due to the Court’s recent invalidation of the agreements in an earlier appeal. CMI also argues that George Regional gave inadequate Request for Proposal statements and that Greene County failed to comply with publication requirements. The special chancellor, in his 2008 order determined that Greene County substantially complied with section 41-13-15. The Editor’s Note provides for the liberal construction of section 41-13-15. The special chancellor’s determination that Greene County substantially complied with the statute is more accurately described as in compliance given a liberal construction of the statute. CMI’s assertions that George Regional failed to respond to the RFPs amounted to nothing more than a matter of tedious semantics. Given the Legislature’s decision to liberally construe many of the Title 41, Chapter 13 statutes, including section 41-13-15, the special chancellor did not err by finding that Greene County complied with the provisions of Section 41-13-15. Issue 3: Contempt CMI argues that the trial court erred by finding it in contempt of paragraph 11(3) of the second amended final judgment and imposing $7,500 in sanctions. If the primary purpose of the contempt order is to enforce the rights of private party litigants or enforce compliance with a court order, then the contempt is civil. When the action is for civil contempt, the standard of review is the manifest-error rule. Where a party's intentional misconduct causes the opposing party to expend time and money needlessly, then attorney fees and expenses should be awarded to the wronged party. The second amended final judgment obligated CMI to provide documentation in accordance with paragraph 11. The special chancellor retained jurisdiction to enforce the provision of the second amended final judgment. After reviewing the evidence, the special chancellor determined that CMI had failed to comply with paragraph 11 of the second amended final judgment and awarded attorneys’ fees. The trial court was not manifestly wrong in its determination that CMI failed to provide required documentation pursuant to the second amended final judgment nor that the trial court was manifestly wrong by assessing attorneys’ fees where one party intentionally failed to provide required documentation resulting in needlessly expending time and money on the matter by opposing counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
