White, et al. v. White, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-02108-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2012 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Setting aside agreed order - M.R.C.P. 60(b) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-22-2010 Appealed from: Calhoun County Chancery Court Judge: Edwin Hayes Roberts, Jr. Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AGREED ORDER Case Number: 2006-152(R) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Julia White, et al. |
DAVID EARL ROZIER JR.
JENESSA JO CARTER HICKS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Bessie L. White, Widow of Sonny White, et al. | PRESTON RAY GARRETT | ||
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: | Real property - Setting aside agreed order - M.R.C.P. 60(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bee and Birdie White owned property in Calhoun County. Upon their deaths, the property was divided into seven equal parts among their seven surviving children. Six of the children conveyed their interests in the property to their brother while reserving unto themselves a life estate. After their brother’s death, the six siblings contested their conveyance of the property. However, before a trial took place, the six siblings entered into a stipulation that resulted in an agreed order admitting the conveyance was proper. Three years later they contested the agreed order, claiming it was a mistake. The chancery court denied their request for relief. The siblings appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The siblings argue that M.R.C.P. 60(b) warrants the setting aside of the agreed order. Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances, and neither ignorance nor carelessness on the part of an attorney will provide grounds for relief. Furthermore, a party is not entitled to relief merely because he is unhappy with the judgment, but he must make some showing that he was justified in failing to avoid mistake or inadvertence; gross negligence, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law is not enough. The siblings argue subsections four and six of Rule 60(b) apply to their case because they allegedly never authorized their counsel to enter into the agreed order on their behalf. The record indicates the siblings discussed the matter with their counsel and then paid him for his services. It was not until three years after the agreed order was entered and the siblings discussed the order with their attorney that they ultimately sought to have the order set aside. There are no exceptional circumstances warranting the negation of the agreed order under Rule 60(b). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
