Anderson v. Britton & Koontz Bank, N.A.
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01798-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-15-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Dismissed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful disposal of personal property - Interlocutory order - M.R.C.P. 54(b) - M.R.A.P. 5 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-01-2009 Appealed from: ADAMS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: FORREST JOHNSON Disposition: GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR BANK Case Number: 08-KV-0121-J |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Carolyn Anderson |
DEBORAH A. MCDONALD |
||
| Appellee: | Britton & Koontz Bank, N.A. a/k/a Britton & Koontz First National Bank and Britton & Koontz Capital Corporation | DONNA MARIE MEEHAN, MICHAEL D. SIMMONS |
|
|
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: | Wrongful disposal of personal property - Interlocutory order - M.R.C.P. 54(b) - M.R.A.P. 5 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carolyn Anderson sued two defendants, B&K Bank and E.A. Redd Pest Control, Inc., for wrongfully disposing of her personal property. B&K Bank moved for summary judgment on all of Anderson’s claims. Redd Pest Control neither joined this motion nor independently moved for summary judgment. The court granted the summary judgment motion, and Anderson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 54(b), the summary-judgment order was not a final, appealable judgment. When an order does not dispose of all the parties, Rule 54(b) requires the court to take two separate steps before an appeal can be perfected. First, the court must expressly determine there is no just reason for delay. And, second, it must expressly direct the entry of judgment. In this case, the circuit court did not make an expressed determination that there is no just reason for delay and an expressed direction for the entry of the judgment. Without a Rule 54(b) certification, the order granting summary judgment to only one of the two defendants is interlocutory. An interlocutory order is only appealable if the Mississippi Supreme Court grants permission under M.R.A.P. 5, and Anderson neither sought nor was afforded permission under Rule 5 to proceed with an interlocutory appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
