Melton v. Smith's Pecans, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00920-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00920-COA ; 2009-CT-00920-SCT ; 2009-CT-00920-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-08-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Jurisdiction - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - M.R.A.P. 2(a) - M.R.C.P. 60(b) relief - Attorney's incompetence - Execution of settlement documents - M.R.C.P. 70(a) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-26-2009 Appealed from: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: WILLIAM F. COLEMAN Disposition: DENIED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER ENFORCING SETTLEMENT; GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CITATION OF CONTEMPT AND APPOINTMENT OF CLERK TO EXECUTE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS Case Number: 2004-56 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Tonya Melton, Charles David Melton, Jr., Paula Dawn Harris and James Kendall Harris |
JOHN R. MCNEAL JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Smith's Pecans, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation, Alfred Randolph Smith, Jr. | J. TUCKER MITCHELL, W. SHAN THOMPSON, LATOYA TATE JETER | ||
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 - Jurisdiction - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - M.R.A.P. 2(a) - M.R.C.P. 60(b) relief - Attorney's incompetence - Execution of settlement documents - M.R.C.P. 70(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | In March 2009, the Hinds County Circuit Court ordered Tonya Melton, Charles David Melton Jr., Paula Dawn Harris, and James Kendall Harris to execute documents settling their personal-injury lawsuit against Smith’s Pecans. The Meltons refused to comply and, after Smith’s Pecans moved for contempt, filed a motion under M.R.C.P. 60(b) to set aside the enforcement order. The court denied the motion, and the Meltons appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Because the Meltons filed their notice of appeal almost ninety days after the entry of the March 9 order enforcing the settlement, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction under M.R.A.P. 4(a) and 2(a) to consider directly the validity of this order. Filing a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) did not alter the thirty-day jurisdictional requirement. Thus, the Court’s review is limited to the two orders entered within thirty days prior to the Meltons’ June 5 notice of appeal: the denial of the Meltons’ Rule 60(b) motion and the grant of Smith’s Pecans’ motion for contempt and execution of the settlement documents under M.R.C.P. 70(a), both filed on May 27. Issue 2: M.R.C.P. 60(b) The Meltons argue the circuit court should have provided relief from the order enforcing settlement because there was no underlying settlement agreement and because they did not have the opportunity to testify about their attorney’s lack of settlement authority at the March enforcement hearing. Applying the Meltons’ claims to the language of Rule 60(b), only subsection six, the catchall, provides a potential avenue of relief. Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances, and neither ignorance nor carelessness on the part of an attorney will provide grounds for relief. In this case, the circuit court found that the Meltons’ attorney, based on his representation of the Meltons throughout the litigation, had the apparent authority to enter into a binding settlement and that the Meltons had failed to meet their burden to show the attorney actually lacked authority. The evidence showed the Meltons were aware of the settlement soon after their attorney accepted it. They let two weeks pass without notifying Smith’s Pecans that they did not consent to the settlement. When presented the check and settlement documents, they refused to execute them, not because of the attorney’s lack of authority, but because they learned Tonya’s ex-husband claimed he was entitled to a portion of the settlement. This was a proper application of Mississippi law based upon apparent authority in agency relationships. The Meltons argue the denial of an opportunity to testify at the March enforcement hearing because of their attorney’s incompetence was an alternative reason justifying setting aside the enforcement order. But the attorney’s alleged incompetence cannot be a basis for Rule 60(b) relief. Issue 2: Execution of settlement documents Although the Meltons specifically designated the contempt order in their notice of appeal, they failed to cite any authority in their brief for why the finding of contempt or the appointment under M.R.C.P. 70(a) was improper. There are no Mississippi cases addressing the application of Rule 70(a). But based on a plain reading of the rule, there was no error in granting Smith’s Pecans’ request that someone be appointed to execute the settlement documents. The settlement-enforcement order directed the Meltons to perform a specific act (execute the settlement documents) within a specific time period (fourteen days). And the record clearly reflects the Meltons did not comply with this order. Therefore, the circuit court properly exercised its discretion under Rule 70(a) to appoint the circuit clerk to execute the settlement documents. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
