City of Cleveland v. Mid-South Associates, LLC


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-00971-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00971-COA ; 2010-CT-00971-SCT ; 2010-CT-00971-SCT ; 2010-CT-00971-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-09-2011
Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Attorney's fees - Unsuccessful appeal of CON - Section 41-7-201(2)(c) & (f)
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-27-2010
Appealed from: DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Vicki Cobb
Disposition: DENIED ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO CITY OF CLEVELAND WHICH OPPOSED MEDICAL CLINIC’S RELOCATION TO DESOTO COUNTY

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: City of Cleveland, Mississippi




THOMAS L. KIRKLAND JR. ANDY LOWRY



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Mid-South Associates, LLC JOHN L. MAXEY II WILLIAM HOLCOMB HUSSEY  

    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: Attorney's fees - Unsuccessful appeal of CON - Section 41-7-201(2)(c) & (f)

    Summary of the Facts: In 2006, Mid-South Associates, LLC filed an application for a Certificate of Need with the Mississippi Department of Health in an effort to relocate seventy-five nursing-home beds from Bolivar County to DeSoto County. The City of Cleveland, which is located in Bolivar County, joined the action in opposition to Mid-South’s request. The CON was denied. Mid-South appealed the Health Department’s decision to the chancery court which reversed the denial of the CON. The Health Department and the City then appealed the chancellor’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the chancellor’s judgment and reinstated the Health Department’s denial of the CON. The Supreme Court denied Mid-South’s request for certiorari review. Thereafter, the City filed a motion in the chancery court seeking statutory attorney’s fees and costs under section 41-7-201(2)(f). The chancellor, applying the precise language of the statute, held that she could not award attorney’s fees because she had reversed, and not affirmed, the Health Department’s decision. The chancellor further found that she had no jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees because the Court of Appeals did not remand the case for such an award. The City appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: There are two instances where the Legislature has made it explicitly clear that attorney’s fees must be awarded following an unsuccessful appeal of the Health Department’s decision on a CON. Pursuant to section 41-7-201(2)(c), if a party appeals a CON decision to the chancery court and the chancery court fails to act on the appeal within 120 days of the Health Department’s final decision, the chancery court’s inaction acts as an affirmance. If this constructive affirmance is upheld by the Supreme Court on appeal, the Supreme Court must award attorney’s fees to the appellee. Pursuant to section 41-7-201(2)(f), if a party appeals a CON decision to the chancery court and the chancery court affirms the Health Department’s final decision, the chancery court shall award attorney’s fees. The Legislature has also given the chancery court discretion to award attorney’s fees as a part of its final ruling on an appeal of a CON. There is no provision in the statute concerning an award of attorney’s fees when, as here, the chancellor reversed the Health Department’s decision and the chancellor was then reversed on appeal. The City argues that, while the procedural path of this case is not included in the language of the statute, it falls within the Legislature’s intent to award attorney’s fees when the Health Department’s decision is upheld. It is undisputed that the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. The Legislature enacted section 41-7-201, which delineates the procedure used to appeal a final decision pertaining to a CON. Attorney’s fees are mandatory in some cases, discretionary in some cases and, as here, not specifically addressed. Looking at the language of the statute, the Court cannot say that this was an oversight on the part of the Legislature.


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