Reeves Constr. & Supply, Inc. v. Corrigan
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01072-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01072-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-05-2010 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Appeal Dismissed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - M.R.C.P. 54(b) judgment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-16-2008 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTERED AND CERTIFIED AS FINAL Case Number: CI07-0018 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | REEVES CONSTRUCTION & SUPPLY, INC., A
CORPORATION, AND KEN REEVES D/B/A
REEVES CONSTRUCTION |
BRANDON LARUE BROOKS |
||
| Appellee: | KATE CORRIGAN | M. RONALD DOLEAC |
|
|
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 - M.R.C.P. 54(b) judgment |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Reeves Construction Company, Inc. had performed a portion of repair work on the home of Kate Corrigan, a dispute arose, and as a result, Corrigan refused to pay Reeves, Inc. for any further work. Ken Reeves, the principal owner of Reeves, Inc., filed a notice of construction lien against Corrigan’s property. Reeves did not file the notice of construction lien in his capacity as an agent of Reeves, Inc. Instead, Reeves filed it under his own name as an individual. Corrigan sued Reeves, Inc. and “Ken Reeves d/b/a Reeves Construction” for breach of contract, false notice of a construction lien, and slander of title. Reeves responded with an answer and a counterclaim to enforce the previously-filed construction lien. Corrigan filed a motion for summary judgment. The court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Reeves wrongfully filed his notice of construction lien against Corrigan’s property. The circuit court went on to find that Corrigan was entitled to statutory damages against Reeves. However, the circuit court denied Corrigan’s request for summary judgment incident to Corrigan’s cause of action for slander of title. Reeves appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The record does not contain a motion for certification pursuant to M.R.C.P. 54(b). Instead, the circuit court simply entered its opinion and order finding that Corrigan was entitled to summary judgment incident to her claim for false notice of a construction lien – but not as to her claim for slander of title. Corrigan had also filed a claim for breach of contract, and although the parties agreed to cancel Reeves’s notice of construction lien, a portion of Reeves’s response included an allegation that Corrigan was liable for breach of contract. Although there is language in the court’s order which seems to be an intent to act as the circuit court’s certification pursuant to Rule 54(b), such judgments must be reserved for rare and special occasions. Here, it is unclear how the circuit court’s final judgment serves the interests of efficient judicial administration. Likewise, it is unclear why there is no just reason for delay in approving the final judgment. Corrigan’s motion for partial summary judgment concerned the claims for false notice of construction lien and for slander of title. The circuit court granted summary judgment incident to the claim for false filing of a construction lien. The circuit court denied Corrigan’s slander-of-title claim without any explanation. That claim remains to be adjudicated. To prevail on her slander-of-title claim, Corrigan must prove that Reeves filed the construction lien at issue falsely and with malicious intent. However, Corrigan’s slander-of-title claim arises out of the allegedly wrongful filing of the construction lien. Therefore, it is evident that these two claims are intertwined, as they involve a commonality of operative facts. Accordingly, it was inappropriate to enter the Rule 54(b) final judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
