Reeves v. Peterson
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01605-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-13-2010 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Motion for reconsideration - Hearing - M.R.C.P. 78 - Valuation standard - Section 95-5-10(1) - Fair market value Judge(s) Concurring: , C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-04-2008 Appealed from: Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: GRANTED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND AWARDED $92,901.60 Case Number: 2006-59 |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Rebecca E. Reeves and James Reeves |
WAYNE SMITH |
|
|
| Appellee: | John Peterson | ROBERT E. CLARK | ||
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 - Motion for reconsideration - Hearing - M.R.C.P. 78 - Valuation standard - Section 95-5-10(1) - Fair market value |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Peterson and Rebecca Peterson Reeves were granted a divorce in 1988. The divorce was immediately granted; however, due to procedural errors which resulted in an appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court, the entry of divorce and property settlement were reversed and remanded. In 1996, during the remand period, the couple obtained a divorce in Louisiana, and Rebecca married James Reeves in 1997. Rebecca still claimed, however, error in the chancellor’s granting of the property settlement, which resulted in another appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court. On July 29, 2005, a chancellor from the East Baton Rouge Parish in Louisiana entered a final judgment that, among other things, conveyed to Rebecca full title and ownership of several acres of the Petersons’ marital property located in Jefferson County, Mississippi. Rebecca conveyed the property to herself and James as joint tenants with rights of survivorship on May 16, 2006. In the fall of 2005, following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, John proceeded to cut and remove damaged and diseased timber from the land, including timber on the land owned by the Reeveses. The Reeveses filed a complaint, alleging that John had “willfully and maliciously” taken timber from property owned by the Reeveses, leased the property to a livestock owner, and granted hunting privileges on the property to a third party. The Reeveses filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion also elected for a writ of inquiry to determine damages, although the motion contained a valuation estimate submitted by the Reeveses’ expert. The motion was granted by the circuit court on February 2, 2007, awarding the Reeveses $132,452 in damages (based upon the valuation estimate contained in the motion), and a writ of inquiry was entered, reserving for John the right to challenge the Reeveses’ appraisal of damages within thirty days. John filed his response to the writ of inquiry, which contained an independent, separate valuation disputing the damage estimate prepared by the Reeveses’ timber expert. The court ordered John to pay damages in the amount of $92,901.60 to the Reeveses. This amount was the value of the timber as estimated by John’s expert witness. The Reeveses filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The court granted the motion as to post-judgment interest, awarding the Reeveses interest at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum. The Reeveses appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Hearing The Reeveses argue that, in order to present their motion for reconsideration properly, they should have been granted an oral hearing before the circuit court. To support their position, the Reeveses cite a portion of M.R.C.P. 78. Where the circuit court gives due consideration to a party’s motion for reconsideration, there is no need for a hearing on the motion. Thus, there was no error. Issue 2: Standard The Reeveses argue that the circuit court applied an incorrect valuation standard in determining the damage award. Section 95-5-10 is the exclusive remedy for cutting trees without consent. Subsection (1) defines fair market value as the amount at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts. The Reeveses’ expert witness testified that the fair market value of the timber was $25,623. However, John’s expert testified that the timber’s FMV was $21,705.80. The circuit court based its award of damages on the testimony of John’s expert. Particularly at issue during the hearing was the value of the cherry bark oak and red oak. There is nothing in the record which contradicts that John’s expert’s values were based on what the market would pay for the standing timber at issue. Thus, there was no error in the court’s use of his valuation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
