Kea v. Keys, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00072-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00072-COA2010-CT-00072-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 05-05-2011 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-20-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Distribution of personal property - Jurisdiction - Replevin - Section 11-37-101 - In custodia legis - Revival of petition - Equitable interest - Weight of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-15-2010 Appealed from: Simpson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: AWARDED VARIOUS ITEMS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY HELD BY SHERIFF TO STATE FARM AND THE REMAINDER TO LISA KEYS Case Number: 2006-250 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Albert Kea |
JULIE ANN EPPS
E. MICHAEL MARKS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Lisa Keys and State Farm Insurance Companies | JAMES F. NOBLE III MARTIN R. JELLIFFE KIMBERLY NELSON HOWLAND | ||
| Appellee #2: | ||||
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: | Distribution of personal property - Jurisdiction - Replevin - Section 11-37-101 - In custodia legis - Revival of petition - Equitable interest - Weight of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Simpson County Circuit Court sua sponte scheduled a hearing to determine which party was entitled to receive personal property that had been maintained as evidence by the Simpson County Sheriff’s Department. The personal property – primarily collectibles and other items that had been obtained overseas – had been delivered to the Simpson County Sheriff’s Department by Robert Keys. Robert’s widow, Lisa Keys, and his father, Albert Kea, each claimed that they were entitled to receive all of the property at issue. State Farm claimed that it was entitled to receive a portion of the property at issue, as it had paid Robert for certain specific items incident to loss claims that Robert had filed in 1992 and/or 1994. Ultimately, the circuit court found that State Farm was to receive a portion of the property at issue, and Lisa was to receive the remainder of the property at issue. Albert appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Albert argues that Lisa’s petition was insufficient to convey jurisdiction over the distribution of the collectibles. Albert’s argument is centered on the concept that Lisa’s initial pleading was not a proper replevin claim in that it did not meet the requirements set forth in section 11-37-101. However, the proceedings which led to this appeal were not replevin proceedings. There was no allegation that the circuit court wrongfully took the collectibles at issue or that the circuit court was wrongfully in possession of them. Lisa correctly argues that the collectibles were in the circuit court’s possession in custodia legis. Property seized under a search warrant is an exercise of the police power of the state, and the state has the authority to keep and maintain control of the property until it is no longer needed in a criminal prosecution or investigation. While the property is thus seized, it is under the lawful custody of the court having jurisdiction of the criminal prosecution in which the property is material evidence. The collectibles were not seized pursuant to a search warrant, but they were still in the lawful custody of the circuit court. When seized property is no longer needed for criminal prosecution by the State, it should be restored to its lawful owner. Here, there was a conflict as to ownership of the property in this case. If there is a dispute as to ownership, this is an entirely civil proceeding in which the State has no interest, and the property is held until the question of ownership has been determined by a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction. The proper means to initiate a hearing for the disbursement of the collectibles at issue would have been for the Simpson County Sheriff’s Department to file a motion with the circuit court requesting the circuit court’s leave to release the collectibles. That procedure was not followed. Instead, the circuit court sua sponte initiated the proceedings after repeated requests for the collectibles from Lisa, Lisa’s mother, and Albert. Although the proper method to initiate a proceeding for the release of property held in custodia legis was not followed, there was no fatal error in the proceedings. All interested parties were provided notice of the hearings, and all interested parties had an opportunity to be heard by a fair and impartial judge during the two hearing dates. Issue 2: Revival of petition Albert argues that the circuit court erred when it entered its order nunc pro tunc reviving Lisa’s petition as though it had never been dismissed because Lisa had voluntarily dismissed her initial pleading, and she had never formally moved to reinstate it. He also argues that Lisa should have been estopped from participating in the circuit court’s sua sponte proceedings because Lisa had previously argued that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear State Farm’s claim because she had dismissed her own claim. The proceedings that led to this appeal were not replevin proceedings. Accordingly, it was unnecessary for the circuit court to reinstate Lisa’s initial pleading nunc pro tunc. Although it is true that Lisa initially argued that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, Lisa did not benefit from that position. The circuit court disagreed with Lisa and granted State Farm’s request to intervene in the circuit court’s sua sponte initiated proceeding. Having received no benefit from her position since the circuit court had found no merit to her jurisdictional argument, there was no reason that Lisa could not argue that she was entitled to possession of the collectibles. An unsuccessful challenge of a circuit court’s jurisdiction does not preclude a party from defending or pursuing claims or offering evidence if the matter proceeds to trial. Issue 3: Bankruptcy Albert argues that the circuit court should have dismissed Lisa’s petition because her claims were contradictory to assertions she had made when she filed for bankruptcy. Albert raises this issue for the first time on appeal. Issues that were not first presented to the trial court are procedurally barred on appeal. Issue 4: Equitable interest Albert argues that the circuit court erred when it held that it had no authority to determine his equitable interest in the collectibles. Simply because the circuit court stated that Albert “may very well” have an equitable interest in the property does not mean that the circuit court stated that Albert should have been awarded the collectibles. Naturally, “may” must also imply “may not.” In other words, the circuit court did not definitively state that Albert did have an equitable interest in the property. More importantly, simply because the circuit court stated that Albert “may very well” have an equitable interest in the collectibles does not mean that Albert asserted an equitable interest in the collectibles. In fact, Albert never argued that he had an equitable interest in the collectibles. Accordingly, Albert is procedurally barred from asserting an equitable interest on appeal. Issue 5: Weight of evidence Albert argues that the evidence does not support the circuit court’s decision to award any of the property to Lisa. Albert does not claim the circuit court erred when it awarded four collectibles to State Farm. Albert focuses his attention on the collectibles the circuit court awarded to Lisa. Regarding the pocket watch, Albert notes that Lisa did not produce a receipt which adequately demonstrated that Lisa had purchased it. Along with the other collectibles, Robert delivered the pocket watch to the Simpson County Sheriff’s Department at the Simpson County District Attorney’s request. Clearly, the pocket watch was in Robert’s possession before Robert tendered it to authorities. Furthermore, Robert died prior to the proceedings that led to this appeal. It is noteworthy that neither Lisa nor Albert produced a receipt or other documentation that would indicate that the pocket watch had been purchased. Thus, there is no manifest error in the circuit court’s decision to award the pocket watch to Lisa. Regarding the other collectibles that the circuit court disbursed to Lisa, there is no clear or manifest error in the circuit court’s decision. Lisa produced receipts for fourteen of the twenty collectibles. Although Albert introduced receipts regarding some of the collectibles, all of the receipts that Albert introduced indicated that those collectibles were purchased by either Robert or Lisa. Albert did not introduce any cancelled checks, money orders, cashier’s checks, or other documentary proof regarding ownership of any of the collectibles. Lisa testified that Albert never gave her or Robert money to purchase any of the collectibles. Based on the evidence before the circuit court, there is no clear or manifest error in the circuit court’s decision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
