Morris, et al. v. Walden
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00084-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-07-2003 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: APPEAL DISMISSED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Premature appeal - Section 11-51-11 - Section 11-51-12 - Penalty Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Bridges, Lee, Irving, and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Myers, J. Dissent Joined By : Thomas and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-17-2001 Appealed from: Holmes County Chancery Court Judge: Gail Shaw-Pierson Disposition: FOUND APPELLANTS TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AWARDED APPELLEES $3,600 DAMAGES, $30,000 PENALTY, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES. Case Number: 00-0155 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charlie Morris and Phyllis Allen |
BARRY BRIDGFORTH
PHILIP DAVID BRIDGES |
||
| Appellee: | Inez Walden and Linda Walden | MINOR F. BUCHANAN |
|
|
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: | Contempt - Premature appeal - Section 11-51-11 - Section 11-51-12 - Penalty |
| Summary of the Facts: | Inez Walden and Linda Walden filed suit against Charlie Morris and Phyllis Allen for tortious interference with business activities and breach of contract. After the chancellor issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Morris and Allen from further interference of the Waldens' use of the property and a preliminary injunction ordering Morris and Allen to cease interference with the Waldens’ leasehold rights, the Waldens filed a motion for criminal contempt against Morris and Allen for violations of the injunction. The court found Morris and Allen in criminal contempt, and ordered them to pay $3,600 in actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and $30,000 in sanctions. Morris and Allen appeal the award of attorney’s fees and sanctions. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Premature appeal Morris and Allen filed a motion to reconsider the ruling on contempt, for clarification and for certification of interlocutory appeal and on the same day, filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment. There is no order in the record denying the post-trial motion. Although section 11-51-11 (criminal contempt) and section 11-51-12 (civil contempt) allow an immediate appeal from a contempt order, the statutes were not validly invoked. Morris and Allen filed a notice of appeal, did so before receiving a ruling on their motion for reconsideration, and failed to post a bond. Issue 2: Contempt Morris and Allen argue that the chancellor awarded too much as a penalty and also erred in having the penalty paid to the Waldens instead of to the court. In criminal contempt, any fine should be paid to the court. However, fines in civil contempt are payable to the party injured by noncompliance with the court's order and ordinarily should not exceed the injured party's proved losses and litigation expenses, including counsel fees. Here, the decree from which the attempt to appeal was taken creates these ambiguities as to whether the chancellor intended to enter an order of criminal or civil contempt. Most but not all of the decree is directed towards considerations of criminal contempt in which case, it would have been error to require those in contempt to pay sanctions to the other parties. Before the contempt can be evaluated on the merits, it is necessary that these issues be resolved. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
