Harrison v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-02067-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-02067-COA ; 2008-CT-02067-SCT ; 2008-CT-02067-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-23-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - M.R.C.P. 59(e) - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) - Lien holder - Responsibility for judgment - Nominal party - Section 75-3-110(d) - Notice of trial date Judge(s) Concurring: Myers, P.J., Barnes, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Roberts, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : King, C.J., Lee, P.J., and Carlton, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-23-2008 Appealed from: WEBSTER COUNTY SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: BANK ORDERED TO REIMBURSE MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION $42,950 Case Number: 98-0058-CV-L |
|
| Note: | This judgment was later affirmed by the Supreme Court on 3/03/2011. See the SCT opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO69092.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | J. CLIFFORD HARRISON AS TRUSTEE
(“HARRISON”) AND REGIONS BANK F/K/A
AMSOUTH BANK AND SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO DEPOSIT GUARANTY
NATIONAL BANK (“BANK”) |
JEFFREY DALE RAWLINGS, JON JERDONE MIMS |
|
|
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION | JAMES T. METZ | ||
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: | Eminent domain - M.R.C.P. 59(e) - M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) - Lien holder - Responsibility for judgment - Nominal party - Section 75-3-110(d) - Notice of trial date |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Transportation Commission filed a complaint for eminent domain proceedings to acquire 1.45 acres of land in Webster County for the purpose of expanding a portion of U.S. Highway 82. As the owner of the property, Sherry Mann was named as a defendant. J. Clifford Harrison, as trustee, and Regions Bank f/k/a AmSouth Bank, as successor in interest to Deposit Guaranty National Bank were named as defendants as the beneficiary and trustee under certain deeds of trust which secured Sherry’s indebtedness to the Bank. A statement of value was filed with the complaint in which the MTC’s appraiser estimated just compensation for the taking to be $14,450. Accordingly, the MTC deposited $14,450 with the trial court. The trial court then granted the MTC the right of immediate title and possession of the property. The trial court appointed a disinterested appraiser to determine just compensation. He determined that the total compensation due to the owner was $57,400. The trial court entered an amended order granting the MTC the right of immediate title and possession upon the MTC’s deposit of the difference between $57,400 and the $14,450 already deposited with the trial court. The MTC complied with this order and deposited a total of $57,400 which was then released to the named defendants – Sherry, Harrison, and the Bank. The check from the trial court was made out to “Sherry Belinda Mann a/k/a Sherry Mann, Ben F. Hilbun, Jr., Atty., Deposit Guaranty National Bank, Beneficiary, J.L. Clifford Harrison, Trustee.” The clerk’s docket shows that the check was delivered to Ben Hilbun, attorney for Sherry. The back of the check was endorsed by Hilbun and Sherry. Below their signatures is a stamp with the following: “Deposit Guaranty National Bank, Post Office Drawer 919, Eupora, Mississippi 39744-0919.” Below the stamp is an illegible signature and the notation: “Personal Banker, applied to ILS # 9500312557.” Apparently, the funds were applied to Sherry’s mortgage loan held by the Bank. Thereafter, the MTC discovered that Sherry had conveyed the property to her mother, Peggy Mann, by warranty deed. The MTC then amended the complaint to include the new landowners – Peggy and her husband, Wayne Mann. After a trial, the jury found that the defendants in the eminent domain action – Sherry, Peggy, Wayne, the Bank, and Harrison – were owed $14,450 as just compensation for the taking. The trial court entered a judgment against the defendants and in favor of the MTC in the amount of $42,950 – the difference between the MTC’s deposit of $57,400 and the jury’s award of $14,450. The Bank and the Trustee appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Appellants argue that their request for relief from judgment under M.R.C.P. 59(e) and 60(b)(6) was improperly denied by the trial court because they were not a party to the removal of funds deposited by the MTC. Further, the Appellants argue that they were not properly notified of the trial date. In order to succeed on a Rule 59(e) motion, the movant must show an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence not previously available, or the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Furthermore, Rule 60(b)(6) allows the trial court to relieve a party from a final judgment for any reason justifying relief from the judgment. The clerk’s docket record shows that the check was delivered to Hilbun, Sherry’s attorney. Sherry and Hilbun both endorsed the check and then presented it to a teller at the Bank. Sherry had the check applied toward her mortgage loan held by the Bank. Harrison, the trustee, did not endorse the check. The only evidence that the Bank endorsed the check is the stamp placed on the check. Because the check was ambiguous as to whether the parties were paid jointly or alternatively, i.e., there was no “and” or “or” language on the payee line of the check, section 75-3-110(d) provides that the check is payable to the parties alternatively and may be negotiated by any of the parties in possession of the check. Thus, the Appellants’ endorsements were not required for Sherry to negotiate the check. It is clear, as the MTC argues, that the MTC is entitled to a judgment in the amount of their excess deposit. However, to hold the Appellants responsible for that judgment – almost ten years after the money was disbursed to the landowner and applied to the landowner’s mortgage – constitutes manifest injustice. The Bank was a nominal party to this case as a lien holder, and the Bank’s lien had long since been satisfied by the time this judgment was entered. Sherry, as the landowner, benefitted from the disbursement of funds that were applied to reduce her mortgage on the land. Due to the considerable delay between the time the funds were disbursed and the time of trial, it was prejudicial and inequitable for the trial court to hold that the Appellants failed to appear and defend their interests. Their interests were dissolved at the moment Sherry’s loan was extinguished. They were not on notice that they would be liable to the MTC under the quick-take provisions because they had no reason to believe they were still an “owner” of the property. Sufficient evidence exists to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Appellants’ motion to amend the judgment or, alternatively, for relief from the judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
