Moorman v. Crocker


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01937-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-29-2010
Opinion Author: Carlton, J.
Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Appeal from justice court - Res judicata - M.R.C.P. 13(a) - M.R.C.P. 1 - Trial de novo - URCCC 5.01
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Roberts, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Barnes, J.
Procedural History: Default Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-17-2008
Appealed from: YALOBUSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Andrew C. Baker
Disposition: DEFAULT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Case Number: CV-2007-81-BY2
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: P. Gayle Moorman




 RALPH STEWART GUERNSEY



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: George T. Crocker TOMMY WAYNE DEFER  
    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 - Appeal from justice court - Res judicata - M.R.C.P. 13(a) - M.R.C.P. 1 - Trial de novo - URCCC 5.01
    Summary of the Facts: George Crocker filed a cause of action initially in the Justice Court of Yalobusha County to collect the balance of a personal loan allegedly owed by P. Gayle Moorman. Upon Moorman’s failure to answer or otherwise defend in justice court, Crocker obtained a default judgment against her in the amount of $2,064. Moorman filed a timely notice of appeal from justice court to circuit court. In appealing the default judgment to the circuit court, Moorman filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Crocker’s complaint. Moorman’s motion for summary judgment asserted that the doctrine of res judicata barred Crocker’s complaint due to a prior chancery court action that resulted in settlement of a separate loan and tort claims between these same parties. The court denied the motion. Moorman then asserted a motion for an expedited trial de novo or, in the alternative, for a certification of a final and appealable judgment pursuant to M.R.C.P. 54(b). The circuit court however found Moorman not entitled to a trial de novo and entered a final judgment upon finding that Moorman’s terminal motion failed. Moorman appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Res judicata Moorman argues that Crocker’s justice court suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata bars all claims that were actually litigated in a previous action as well as any claims which should have been litigated in a previous cause of action. In order for the doctrine of res judicata to act as a bar to subsequent litigation, Mississippi law requires the presence of the following four identities: identity of the subject matter of the action; identity of the cause of action; identity of the parties to the cause of action; and identity of the quality or character of a person against whom the claim is made. The chancery court suit involved, among various other torts, the transactions between Crocker and Moorman relative to the Nissan Altima. However, the suit in justice court involved a separate loan Crocker made to Moorman for $4,000 to purchase a different automobile for her daughter. Thus, no identity of subject matter exists. Alternatively, Moorman argues that M.R.C.P. 13(a) bars Crocker’s justice court suit against her, i.e., Crocker’s claim for the default on the $4,000 loan should have been brought at the same time as his counter-complaint against Moorman for the separate car loan. Because the $4,000 loan constituted a separate and distinct transaction from the loan disposed of in chancery court, an application of Rule 13(a) did not require Crocker to bring that cause of action as a compulsory counter-claim. Additionally, M.R.C.P. 1 provides that the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to justice court. Issue 2: Trial de novo Moorman argues that the circuit court erred by not granting her a trial de novo on her appeal from justice court. Pursuant to URCCC 5.01, the circuit court erred in denying a trial de novo.


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