Dignowity v. Dignowity


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-00368-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-22-2010
Opinion Author: King, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Legal standard - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Failure to call witness
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-08-2009
Appealed from: MARSHALL COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Glenn Alderson
Disposition: GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR KONRAD DIGNOWITY AS CONSERVATOR OF THE ESTATE OF IDA DIGNOWITY
Case Number: 05-0049
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Morgan Dignowity and Regina Dignowity




 C. COLLIER CARLTON, JR.



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Konrad Dignowity, III as Conservator of the Estate of Ida Dignowity RACHEL MARIE PIERCE, REBECCA L. HAWKINS, WILLIAM BRETT HARVEY  
    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 - Legal standard - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Failure to call witness
    Summary of the Facts: Morgan and Regina Dignowity filed a complaint for specific performance against Konrad Dignowity III in his capacity as conservator for the Estate of Ida Dignowity. The chancellor found that this matter had been resolved in chancery cause no. 04-0054 and granted summary judgment in favor of Konrad. Morgan appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Legal standard Morgan argues that the chancellor applied the wrong legal standard in granting the motion for summary judgment and attorney’s fees in favor of Konrad and dismissing his complaint for specific performance and that there are genuine issues of material fact that deserve a full trial on the merits. Morgan does not state in his brief what he considered to be the appropriate legal standard that the chancellor should have applied in granting summary judgment and awarding attorney’s fees. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6), an argument shall contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on. Summary judgment was appropriate in this case. Ownership of the Dignowity Real Property and the authority to sell the property was resolved by an agreed court order in cause no. 04-0054. This whole matter having been litigated and finally adjudicated in the first suit, the issue raised by the present suit is moot. Any claimed right of Morgan to purchase the Dignowity Real Property should have been asserted in chancery cause no. 04-0054. There was an unresolved claim for attorney’s fees raised by Konrad. Konrad has not appealed the dismissal of this claim for attorney’s fees, nor has he sought to have it reinstated. The dismissal of Konrad’s claim for attorney’s fees makes this issue moot. Issue 2: Failure to call witness Morgan argues that the chancellor erred in not allowing Ida, who was present in the courtroom the day of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, to be called to the witness stand as she was a competent witness who had specific knowledge of the facts at issue. This issue is moot.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court