Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal of the financial portion of a bifurcated divorce trial. When Tanya Dale Wright Sanderson and Hobson Sanderson married in 1994, Tanya signed a prenuptial agreement the day before their marriage, and upon divorce, the chancellor enforced the terms of the agreement. Tanya appealed, arguing the prenuptial agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. She also claimed, among other things, that the chancellor erred in not finding a joint bank account contained commingled, marital property. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court on its finding that the prenuptial agreement was not procedurally unconscionable. The Court reversed and remanded, however, on whether the prenuptial agreement was substantively unconscionable. The Court also held that certain funds, used for familial purposes, kept in a joint bank account created after the marriage began, did not fall within the parameters of the prenuptial agreement. View "Sanderson v. Sanderson" on Justia Law

Leo Brown was admitted to the Hattiesburg Health and Rehab Center (HHRC) in February 2012. His wife, Emma, signed an admission agreement both in her individual capacity and on Leo's behalf. Specifically, Emma's signature appears on a line just above the line: "signature of responsible party in his/her individual capacity and on behalf of the resident in the following capacity," where Emma circled the "authorized agent and/or health care surrogate" option. Leo did not sign the agreement. Her husband died soon after his discharge, and she brought a wrongful-death suit against HHRC. HHRC moved to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration. The trial judge held a hearing on HHRC's motion and denied it, stating: "I do not agree that [Emma] was authorized to sign on Mr. Brown's behalf, and I don't – I do not agree that it is binding on Mr. Brown." The trial judge later entered an order, finding again that the Admission Agreement was not binding on Leo. HHRC appealed, challenging the trial court judgment as to: (1) whether the arbitration provision contained within the Admission Agreement entered between Emma Brown, individually and on behalf of Leo Brown, and [HHRC] created a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate; and (2) whether the arbitration provision contained within the Admission Agreement entered between Emma Brown, individually and on behalf of Leo Brown, and [HHRC] was unconscionable. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that Leo is not bound by the arbitration provision. And because that issue was dispositive, the Court did not address HHRC's unconscionability argument. View "Hattiesburg Health & Rehab Center, LLC v. Brown" on Justia Law

Nilene Junker was admitted to the Nichols Center nursing facility after surgery. Junker's daughter, acting with power of attorney, signed an admission agreement on Junker's behalf. The admission agreement contained an arbitration clause. While she was being put in a room, Junker fell and sustained injuries. Junker sued the Nichols Center, and the nursing home filed a motion to compel arbitration. The circuit court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court ruled from the bench without hearing arguments from the parties, holding that the arbitration agreement was not valid and that the "arbitration agreement must fail because it does not make provision for an arbitrator in the event the parties could not agree." The Nichols Center appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding the circuit court erred by denying the motion to compel arbitration on the basis of forum unavailability. "The motion to compel asked the court to determine whether the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable. The court was not asked to rewrite the terms of the agreement to provide for an arbitrator, but rather to compel Junker to comply with the procedures outlined in the agreement. There must be some attempt by the parties to select an arbitrator; then, if the parties cannot agree, the court may be called on to appoint an arbitrator." The case was remanded for a hearing on the motion to compel and a determination of the validity of the arbitration agreement. "If the arbitration agreement is valid, Junker cannot simply refuse to arbitrate." View "NC Leasing, LLC v. Junker" on Justia Law

In 2010, a George County sheriff's deputy attempted to pull over a Chevrolet pickup truck. The truck did not stop, and a high-speed chase ensued. In the truck were defendant Christopher Baxter and Brandy Williams. In an effort to apprehend the two, the Sheriff's Department set up a roadblock. The truck still would not stop, and Sheriff Garry Welford was run over and killed. Baxter and Williams were charged with capital murder and tried separately. Baxter was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Baxter raised several issues on appeal to the Supreme Court, namely: (1) that the jury was improperly instructed on accomplice responsibility; and (2) that the circuit court erred in admitting Baxter's involuntary, unreliable and coerced "confession." Finding no reversible error in the circuit court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Baxter v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

John McAdams, in his official capacity as Chancery Clerk of Harrison County, was appointed guardian of Sybil Bowden and Jonathan Dunn. In October 2003 the Chancery Clerk opened guardianship accounts for Dunn and Bowden at the Peoples Bank of Biloxi, Mississippi. Woodrow "Woody" Pringle III served as the Chancery Clerk's attorney. The Chancery Clerk was the sole signatory on both accounts. Two years later, Pringle closed the Bowden guardianship, without any authority to do so. The Bank issued Pringle a cashier's check payable to Bowden and Pringle, jointly. Pringle forged Bowden's signature, cashed the check, and retained the funds for himself. The Dunn account required a court order before disbursements could be made. The Bank paid checks drawn on the Dunn guardianship account, in the absence of a court order. The Chancery Clerk filed suit against the Bank alleging gross negligence, negligence, and conversion of a negotiable instrument. The Bank pleaded that the statute of limitations had run on these claims and filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion. The Bank petitioned the Supreme Court and was granted leave to file this interlocutory appeal. The Court found that the Chancery Clerk filed his complaint May 8, 2013. The three transactions at issue occurred on January 24, 2005; June 11, 2008; and March 25, 2009. As to the conversion claims, the most recent transaction occurred more than four years before the filing of the complaint (well outside the three-year statute of limitations). However, negligence/gross negligence claims were subject to the "discovery rule." The Bank offered evidence that it sent statements to the Chancery Clerk concerning these transactions on the last day of each month. The Chancery Clerk offered no proof to dispute the Bank's assertion, although he claims he never received a Bank statement because Pringle removed the Bank statements delivered to the Chancery Clerk. "The statute-of-limitations issue is not a question of fact because reasonable minds could not differ [. . .] that the Chancery Clerk lacked diligence in failing to obtain and review any account statements for more than a year and a half on one account and more than eight years on the other." The Supreme Court concluded the circuit court erred in refusing to grant the Bank its motion for summary judgment because the Chancery Clerk's claims expired due to the applicable statutes of limitation. View "Peoples Bank of Biloxi, Miss. v. McAdams" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Damon Fagan of four counts of sexual battery, and the trial judge sentenced him to thirty years in prison, with ten years' post-release supervision. Fagan appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing that the State's evidence was legally insufficient and that his conviction was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the trial court. View "Fagan v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Minor O.D. filed a petition for approval of a settlement her parents had negotiated with car insurance companies for injuries she had suffered in a car accident. On the day of the hearing, O.D.'s health insurance coverage provider Ashley Healthcare Plan, which had a subrogation lien against the proceeds of O.D.'s claim, removed the case to federal court, arguing that Mississippi Code Section 93-13-59 (which requires chancery court approval of settlement claims) was preempted by the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The federal district court held that ERISA did not preempt the state law and remanded the case to the chancery court without awarding attorney's fees to O.D. On motion from O.D.'s parents, the Pontotoc County Chancery Court awarded O.D. attorney's fees, holding that Ashley Healthcare Plan's removal to federal court was contrary to clearly established law and that it was done for the purpose of delaying litigation. Ashley Healthcare Plan appealed the grant of attorney fees. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. Although O.D. could have sought recovery of attorney's fees under Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, frivolous removals to federal court were also subject to the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act. Furthermore, Ashley Healthcare Plan's removal to federal court was contrary to two decades of case law which uniformly held that Mississippi's law requiring chancery court approval of minors' settlements was not preempted by ERISA and that Ashley Healthcare Plan was seeking a remedy in federal court that was unavailable to it under the ERISA Civil Enforcement Clause. View "In the Matter of the Guardianship of O. D." on Justia Law

In 2009, Plaintiff Barry White went to Memorial Hospital at Gulfport's emergency room complaining of slurred speech and left-sided numbness. White told the nurses there he thought he was having a stroke. He was diagnosed with hypertension, given medicine and sent home. He returned the next day, and after testing, White was diagnosed with having had a completed stroke. White underwent a battery of outpatient occupational therapy, speech therapy and physical therapy. White then brought a medical negligence lawsuit against Memorial Hospital regarding the alleged misdiagnosis and won at trial. On appeal, the hospital challenged White's expert witnesses' testimony, claiming they failed to provide medical literature to support their opinions. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the experts were not required to provide medical literature to support their opinions, and affirmed. View "Memorial Hospital at Gulfport v. White" on Justia Law

In 2004, Luther McLain sued the Illinois Central Railroad, alleging that Illinois Central’s negligence caused his degenerative back injury. At trial, McLain had improper contact with a juror, committed perjury on the stand, and solicited a witness to commit perjury on the stand to corroborate his story. The trial judge reserved sanctioning McLain until after the jury verdict. The jury found for McLain, assessed his damages as $150,000, and judgment was entered accordingly. Thereafter, the trial judge sanctioned McLain $500 for juror contact and $10,000 for solicitation of a witness. Illinois Central filed a motion for additional sanctions, claiming that the sanctions were not harsh enough. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the existing sanctions, but held that the trial judge abused her discretion in failing to impose further sanctions. Given the severity of committing perjury and solicitation and the cumulative effect of the violations taken as a whole, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment against Illinois Central, and rendered judgment in its favor. View "Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. McLain" on Justia Law

This action was brought by Inn By the Sea Homeowner’s Association, Inc. (“IBTS”) against various defendants involved in the development, design, and construction of Inn By the Sea Condominiums when the condominiums were rebuilt after being destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Within a year of reconstruction, significant problems with the building began to manifest, problems allegedly related to defects in the design and construction of the property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants after excluding the damages testimony of IBTS’s expert witnesses. IBTS hired Michael Bailey of Kyle Associates, LLC, as its expert structural engineer and Alfred Hayes of Hayes Architect as its expert architect to investigate and identify defects in the design and construction of the property. IBTS timely designated its experts and produced a copy of the witnesses’ reports and cost estimates. In late August 2012, IBTS learned that Michael Bailey had suddenly left his job, moved out town, and could not be located or further made available as an expert on this case. At a subsequent hearing, the trial court orally continued the case without a new trial date in order for IBTS to find a new engineering expert. IBTS hired Ashton Avegno to replace Bailey. Avegno provided his report on November 2, 2012. In addition to largely agreeing with Bailey’s original report, Avegno also expressed concern that the foundation pilings “as designed” were overloaded by as much as “2.82 times its safe capacity and the as built piling would be loaded 2.16 times its capacity.” Avegno was unwilling, however, to provided exact itemized cost estimates for the items of engineering defects he identified. IBTS informed the court that IBTS had been unable to depose any of the defendants’ witnesses, including any of the defendants, and that a new scheduling order should be issued to allow IBTS to conduct depositions and to seasonably supplement its expert reports. The defendants objected to the proposed new scheduling order, arguing that the deadline for expert designations had passed and that Avegno should not be allowed to offer any new opinions, including his opinion that the foundation piles were overloaded. The court granted the motion to exclude Avegno. At some point, Hayes was asked to supplement his report. The defendants moved to strike Hayes’s supplementation and renewed their motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendants’ motion to exclude Alfred Hayes’s damages testimony as well as the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and final judgment. Inn By the Sea timely appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the plaintiff’s witnesses, and therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment. View "Inn By The Sea Homeowner's Association, Inc. v. SeaInn, LLC" on Justia Law