American Public Finance, Inc. v. Smith
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00608-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-05-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Joinder of interested party - M.R.C.P. 19 - M.R.C.P. 25(c) - Section 11-17-29 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-18-2009 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Margaret Alfonso Disposition: FOUND THAT THIRD PARTY HAD NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE JUDGMENT QUIETING TITLE Case Number: C2401-07-01192 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | American Public Finance, Inc. |
JAMES ELDRED RENFROE, T. MITCHELL KALOM, ROY J. PERILLOUX |
|
|
| Appellee: | Lloyd A. Smith | G. MARTIN WARREN JR. | ||
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 - Joinder of interested party - M.R.C.P. 19 - M.R.C.P. 25(c) - Section 11-17-29 |
| Summary of the Facts: | In December 1998, a 22.6-acre piece of property was deeded from D. Joslin to Deep Woods. In August 2002, the chancery court clerk held a tax sale of the property due to unpaid taxes for 2001. The property was sold to ARF, LLC, doing business as Wolf Run. The taxes were still not paid in 2002, and in August 2003, the chancery court clerk sold the property at a tax sale to Suresh Shah. Two years after the respective sales, the court clerk conveyed the land to Wolf Run and Shah. In January 2006, Shah conveyed the property to Lloyd Smith. On May 24, 2007, Smith filed a complaint to confirm and quiet title. On August 13, 2007, Deep Woods conveyed the property to American Public Finance, Inc. by means of a quitclaim deed. Neither Deep Woods nor Wolf Run responded to Smith’s complaint; all other parties with any interest in the property waived their claims to it. Accordingly, a default was entered against Deep Woods and Wolf Run in December 2007, and a final judgment quieting and confirming title in Smith was entered on January 8, 2008. On April 17, 2008, APF filed a motion seeking to set aside the January judgment, void the tax sale and tax deeds, add APF as a third-party plaintiff, and remove cloud and confirm title in APF. The chancellor ruled that APF was not entitled to be added as a third-party plaintiff. Without status as a party to the case, the chancellor found that APF had no standing to file a motion to set aside the judgment under M.R.C.P. 60. APF appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In support of its argument that it should have been allowed to join the action as a party, APF cites M.R.C.P. 19. Failure to join interested parties in a real-estate dispute under M.R.C.P. 19(a) justifies reversal and remand as a violation of fundamental due process. However, joinder of parties is only necessary if complete relief cannot be accorded among those who are already parties to the suit. Despite Rule 19, APF is not entitled to any relief. M.R.C.P. 25(c) discusses the effect of a transfer in interest on the substitution of parties. In this case, Deep Woods was a part of the action to quiet title from the beginning. Subsequent to the filing of the case, Deep Woods transferred its interest in the case to APF; however, Deep Woods was not released from the suit to quiet title. Furthermore, as the chancery court found, APF failed to conduct an adequate title search, which would have revealed the suit to confirm title. APF also argues that section 11-17-29 requires Smith to continually update and check the land records after filing the lawsuit. However, nothing in the statute places a burden on the plaintiff to continually research other claims to the property until the date of the final decree. Furthermore, APF has cited no case that has applied section 11-17-29 in such a manner. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
