Issaquena Warren Counties Land Co., LLC v. Warren County


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-IA-02054-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-11-2008
Opinion Author: Carlson, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Priority-of-jurisdiction rule - Jury trial - M.R.C.P. 57 - Declaratory judgment
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, P.J.
Dissenting Author : Easley and Graves, JJ., without separate written opinion.
Procedural History: Bench Trial; Venue
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-25-2007
Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Vicki Barnes
Disposition: The Chancellor transferred the case to circuit court.
Case Number: 2007-210GN

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Issaquena Warren Counties Land Co. LLC; Gary K. Blakeney; Earnest K. Blakeney and Rose C. Blakeney; Robert D. Ainsworth; Pam Haley; Keith Hawsey; Tommy L. Thrash; Josh L. Thrash; Mike Sutton; Michael R. McTurner and Donna M. McTurner; Ervin Ray and




Mark D. Herbert; Lisa A. Reppeto



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Warren County, Mississippi Kenneth B. Rector; Paul E. Winfield  

    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 - Priority-of-jurisdiction rule - Jury trial - M.R.C.P. 57 - Declaratory judgment

    Summary of the Facts: Issaquena Warren Counties Land Co., LLC purchased 1,200 acres of real property in Warren County. Issaquena’s individual owners subdivided a portion of the property into fifteen lots, which were conveyed individually by deed. Moreover, they constructed roads, installed utilities, and all other necessary activities for the development of a subdivision. Warren County maintains that the county advised Issaquena that such development would require compliance with the county’s subdivision ordinance and floodplain ordinance, which requires county approval for proposed subdivision and development plans. Warren County alleges that Issaquena refused to comply with the ordinances. Warren County filed in the County Court of Warren County twenty-three criminal summonses against the individual owners of Issaquena for alleged violations of the Subdivision Ordinance and/or Floodplain Ordinance, all misdemeanors. At the suggestion of the county court judge, Warren County decided to pursue the matter civilly, and the criminal charges were dismissed with prejudice. Issaquena filed an action in chancery court for declaratory and injunctive relief as to Warren County’s ability to bring multiple actions against it for violations previously alleged in other actions, and alternatively seeking declaratory judgment that it had not violated the Subdivision and Floodplain Management Ordinances. Warren County filed an action in circuit court seeking declaratory relief related to the applicability and enforceability of the subdivision ordinance and a claim for damages. In response to the chancery court action, Warren County filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Transfer to the Circuit Court. The chancery court granted Warren County’s motion to transfer to circuit court. Issaquena filed a petition for interlocutory appeal on the question of whether the chancery court erred in granting Warren County’s motion to transfer to circuit court. The Supreme Court granted the petition.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issaquena relies on the priority-of-jurisdiction rule in support of its argument that the chancellor’s transfer order must be reversed, because the chancery court can properly exercise jurisdiction over both cases, both cases involve the same parties, and both cases involve substantially the same subject matter and cause of action. Warren County argues the priority-of jurisdiction rule does not apply because it seeks a remedy different from that sought by Issaquena, and as such, it is entitled to have its case heard in a court of law. Where two suits between the same parties over the same controversy are brought in courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the court which first acquires jurisdiction retains jurisdiction over the whole controversy to the exclusion or abatement of the second suit. For the purpose of determining which court first had proper jurisdiction, the Court looks to the date the initial pleading is filed, provided process issues in due course. Issaquena filed its action in chancery court on May 26, 2007, following which process was properly issued. Warren County filed its action in circuit court on May 31, 2007. Applying the priority-of-jurisdiction rule, this case involves the same parties and the same issues, and Issaquena filed first in chancery court. Thus, chancery court has priority jurisdiction to the exclusion and abatement of the complaint filed in circuit court. It thus necessarily follows that the motion to transfer should not have been granted by the chancellor. Warren County argues that in seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to M.R.C.P. 57, it is entitled to a jury trial under this rule. Rule 57 has been held to be jurisdictionally neutral. Thus, the fact that each of the parties seeks a declaratory judgment has no effect on which court has proper jurisdiction. Warren County argues that it is not seeking equitable relief, and therefore this case should be heard in circuit court. Despite the fact that Warren County seeks damages, the substance of the claim seeks an equitable remedy. The damages sought by Warren County are ancillary to the equitable remedy of injunction. Based on the underlying substance of the claims by Issaquena and Warren County, a court of equity unquestionably has proper jurisdiction; therefore, the issue of damages falls within the purview of the chancery court’s pendent jurisdiction. Warren County also argues that it has a right to a trial by jury as to the issue of damages. If the chancellor found that this ordinance does apply to the owners of Issaquena, then the issue of damages could be decided by the chancellor pursuant to the amount written into the ordinance. Putting on proof before a jury as to damages would be unnecessary where the amount properly provided for pursuant to the ordinance is fixed.


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