Harrison v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n
| Docket Number: | 2008-CT-02067-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-02067-COA ; 2008-CA-02067-COA ; 2008-CT-02067-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-03-2011 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Court of Appeals affirmed; Special Court of Eminent Domain reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Disbursement of deposit - Section 11-27-85 - Section 11-27-87 - Section 11-27-5 Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-23-2008 Appealed from: Webster County Special Court of Eminent Domain Judge: Joseph H. Loper Case Number: 98-0058-CV-L |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court opinion affirms a previous COA opinion. See the original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO60719.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | J. Clifford Harrison as Trustee ("Harrison") and Regions Bank f/k/a AmSouth Bank and Successor in Interest to Deposit Guaranty National Bank ("Bank") |
JON J. MIMS, JEFFREY D. RAWLINGS |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi Transportation Commission | JAMES T. METZ, ALAN M. PURDIE, BETTY RUTH FOX, JOSHUA D. FREEMAN |
|
|
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: | Eminent domain - Disbursement of deposit - Section 11-27-85 - Section 11-27-87 - Section 11-27-5 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Transportation Commission filed a complaint for eminent-domain proceedings to acquire 1.45 acres of a fifty-acre parcel of property in Webster County to expand a portion of U.S. Highway 82. It named the owner of the property, Sherry Mann, as well as the mortgagee, Deposit Guaranty National Bank, and trustee, J. Clifford Harrison, as defendants. It also filed a statement of values, in which its appraiser valued the property at $14,450. This amount was deposited with the court. The court appointed an independent appraiser, who valued the property at $57,400. The trial court entered an order granting MTC the right of immediate title and possession upon MTC’s deposit of the difference between $14,450 and $57,400. MTC complied with the order and deposited with the circuit clerk a total of $57,400. The court then ordered that the $57,400 be released to the “defendants,” and the circuit clerk issued a check in that amount payable to “Sherry Belinda Mann A/K/A, Ben F. Hilburn, Jr., Atty., Deposit Guaranty National Bank, Beneficiary, J.L. Clifford Harrison, Trustee.” The clerk’s docket shows that the check was “handed to” Ben Hilburn, Sherry’s attorney. Hilburn and Sherry endorsed the check, and Sherry presented it to the Bank to satisfy the lien on the property. A jury trial to determine the value of the property was not held until ten years after the original complaint had been filed. The jury returned a verdict of $14,450 in favor of the defendants. In its judgment, the trial court ordered that all defendants must pay the difference between the withdrawn deposit of $57,400 and the jury award of $14,450. The Bank and Trustee filed a motion to amend judgment or alternatively for relief from judgment, arguing that they should not be responsible for paying the difference, when they were not party to the withdrawal of the funds from the court. The court denied the motion and found that the Bank and Trustee were proper parties to the action, who chose not to appear and defend their interests. The court also found that the Bank and Trustee were in fact parties to the withdrawal of funds, as evidenced by the endorsement on the back of the check. The Bank and Trustee appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | MTC deposited the money in accord with section 11-27-85 which provides that the defendant, or defendants, shall be entitled to receive the amount paid to the clerk of the court, which shall be disbursed as their interest may appear, pursuant to order of the court. Here, the court’s order did not specify that the clerk was to disburse the deposit according to each defendant’s respective interest. The court simply ordered the clerk to disburse the funds to the “defendants.” So the clerk made the check payable to all the defendants without specifying whether the defendants were to be paid jointly or alternatively. Sherry, through her attorney, obtained the check from the clerk, endorsed it, and deposited it at the bank, applying the funds to the lien on the property. While section 11-27-85 provides that the funds can be disbursed to the “defendant, or defendants,” section 11-27-87 addresses who is to pay the difference in the event the deposit is greater than the judgment. This statute expressly provides that the plaintiff’s [MTC] sole remedy is a personal judgment against only the owner, not the mortgagee and trustee. The term “owner” is commonly understood to refer to the landowner–the one in actual possession of the property, not the mortgagee and trustee. This understanding is supported by the language of section 11-27-5 which clearly distinguishes “owner” from “mortgagee” and “trustee.” Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in holding the Bank and Trustee personally liable for the difference. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
