Hammond v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-00547-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-14-2011
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Replevin - Immediate possession - Presentation of evidence - Section 11-37-131
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-04-2010
Appealed from: ALCORN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Thomas J. Gardner
Disposition: GRANTED REPLEVIN OF CATERPILLAR SKID-STEER TO CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL
Case Number: CV09-318GA

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Gerald Hammond




GREGORY D. KEENUM



 

Appellee: Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation ROBERT B. IRELAND III  

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: Replevin - Immediate possession - Presentation of evidence - Section 11-37-131

Summary of the Facts: Gerald Hammond bought a 2005 Caterpillar Skid-Steer from David Timbes on August 15, 2008. Almost a year later, on July 10, 2009, Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation filed a replevin in circuit court alleging that it was entitled to possession of the Skid-Steer due to a prior, perfected security interest. The circuit court granted Caterpillar Financial possession of the Skid-Steer. Hammond appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Caterpillar Financial brought suit under section 11-37-131 which permits a replevin suit be brought without posting bond and without requesting immediate seizure of the property. As required by statute, Caterpillar Financial and Hammond appeared before the circuit court for a final hearing to determine the possession rights of the parties with regard to the Skid-Steer. At the hearing, Hammond did not dispute that Caterpillar Financial had a perfected security interest in the Skid-Steer. Once this fact was admitted, the circuit judge asked Hammond to tell him why Caterpillar Financial’s prior, perfected security interest does not carry the day. The trial transcript clearly indicates that Hammond was permitted to describe, at length, the issues and evidence he would present to prove his case. Although Hammond does not dispute that Caterpillar Financial had a properly perfected security interest in the Skid-Steer, he does argue that the circuit judge erred in not allowing any evidence to be presented at the hearing and not requiring Caterpillar Financial to prove it was entitled to immediate possession before granting Caterpillar Financial possession of the Skid-Steer. The circuit judge’s decision that Caterpillar Financial was entitled to immediate possession of the Skid-Steer was not manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous and was supported by substantial evidence. Hammond failed to provide any authority for his argument that the circuit judge ignored his request to produce evidence or hear testimony at the hearing. This acts as a procedural bar.


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