Jon Adams v. A & C Entertainment

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 5, 2007
Docket2007-CA-01774-SCT
StatusPublished

This text of Jon Adams v. A & C Entertainment (Jon Adams v. A & C Entertainment) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jon Adams v. A & C Entertainment, (Mich. 2007).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2007-CA-01774-SCT

JON ADAMS

v.

A & C ENTERTAINMENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/2007 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. SWAN YERGER COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PAUL E. ROGERS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CHRIS N. K. GANNER NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 04/16/2009 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE WALLER, C.J., DICKINSON AND KITCHENS, JJ.

WALLER, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Jon Adams seeks review of the circuit court’s dismissal of his appeal from county

court. We reverse and remand to the Hinds County Circuit Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Jon Adams leased a building to A & C Entertainment Corporation. Believing A & C

to be in default, Adams sought to evict A & C and recover possession of the building through

a complaint for unlawful entry and detainer. Following trial, the county court ordered Adams

to continue leasing the building to A & C subject to a variety of conditions not at issue here. ¶3. Adams filed a timely notice of appeal with the Circuit Court of the First Judicial

District of Hinds County, and the parties filed briefs with the court. A & C filed a “Motion

to Strike Brief of Defendant/Appellant, Jon Adams and Dismiss Appeal,” to which Adams

filed a response. On January 17, 2007, the circuit court granted A & C’s motion and

dismissed Adams’s appeal for failure to cite authority, in violation of Mississippi Rule of

Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6). The order stated:

Appellant’s Brief does not cite any authority to support his argument. Rule 28(a)(6) M.R.A.P. requires that “[t]he argument shall contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.” Accordingly, Appellant’s Brief is procedurally barred. See Sandlin v. Sandlin, 906 So. 2d 39 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

¶4. Adams filed a motion for reconsideration on or about January 29, 2007. The caption

of Adams’s motion for reconsideration correctly identified the parties, was appropriately

designated as a motion for reconsideration, and was filed in the Hinds County Circuit Clerk’s

office. However, Adams used the county court name and file number, rather than the circuit

court name and file number.1

¶5. A & C filed a response to Adams’s motion for reconsideration on April 13, 2007. A

& C’s response did not object to the motion for reconsideration on the basis that the caption

incorrectly identified the court as “county court” and used the file number from county court.

1 Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(b) provides that “[a] motion or other paper . . . shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court, the style (title) of the case, the tracking or docket number, and a brief descriptive title indicating the purpose of the paper.” Miss. R. App. P. 32(b).

2 On July 5, 2007, the circuit court denied Adams’s motion for reconsideration. The order

stated, in part, that “the Court finds that said motion was not filed in this Court, but was

erroneously filed in the County Court; therefore, the motion was not timely filed in

accordance with Miss. R. App. P. 27(h), as amended, and should be DENIED.”

¶6. Thereafter, on July 16, 2007, Adams filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, Adams

requests that this Court remand this case to the circuit court for a decision on the merits of

his appeal from county court. Alternatively, Adams requests that this Court reverse and

render the decision of the county court.

DISCUSSION

¶7. The sole issue for consideration is whether the circuit court improperly dismissed

Adams’s appeal.

Timely filing the motion for reconsideration

¶8. Before reviewing the merits of the circuit court’s dismissal of Adams’s appeal from

county court, we first review the circuit court’s denial of Adams’s motion for reconsideration

as being untimely.

¶9. The motion for reconsideration was timely filed on January 29, 2007, within fourteen

days of the circuit court’s dismissal of Adams’s appeal on January 17, 2007. See Miss. R.

App. P. 27(h) (“motions for reconsideration of rulings on motions . . . may be filed within

14 days after a decision is handed down on the motion to be reconsidered . . . .”).2

2 The Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to appeals from county court to circuit court. See Van Meter v. Alford, 774 So. 2d 430, 432 (Miss. 2000).

3 ¶10. We are unable to find any authority, at least by rule or precedent, for the circuit

court’s ruling that filing a motion for reconsideration using the county court caption renders

the motion “not filed.” 3 Here, the motion for reconsideration was filed with the Hinds

County Circuit Clerk and satisfied the rules applicable to the filing of motions.4

¶11. While there is no case directly on point in Mississippi, we find some analogous cases

from other jurisdictions which support Adams’s position. See, e.g., Kaster v. Heinrich, 489

N.E.2d 152, 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (motion that was incorrectly numbered was considered

filed when presented to and received by the clerk of the court); Phillips v. Phillips, 265

S.E.2d 441, 443 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980) (defendant demonstrated no prejudice arising from

motion filed containing incorrect cause number when, at the time the motion was served,

there was only one case pending between plaintiff and defendant, and the contents of the

motion clearly indicated that the motion was directed to the subject case); Eagle Props. v.

3 The procedure for appeals from county court to circuit court is controlled by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice, and the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. American Investors, Inc. v. King, 733 So. 2d 830, 832 (Miss. 1999). 4 In reviewing the applicable rules with respect to the requirements for filing motions, we find a rule requiring that all papers shall be filed with the clerk of the Supreme Court (here, the clerk of the circuit court) and that copies of all papers be served on the other party. Miss. R. App. P. 25. In addition, “motion[s] shall contain or be accompanied by any matter required by a specific provision of these rules governing such a motion, shall state with particularity the grounds on which it is based, and shall set forth the order or relief sought.” Miss. R. App. P. 27(a). The attorney presenting the motion must include his/her name, office address, and phone number. Unif. Cir. & Cty. R. 1.05. Motions must include a certificate of service and be served pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 5. Unif. Cir. & Cty. R. 2.06. Finally, original motions “shall be filed with the clerk of the county where the action is docketed.” Unif. Cir. & Cty. R. 4.03. Adams complied with all of these rules.

4 Tex. Commerce Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 7158 at *4 (Tex. App. 2005)

(despite the fact that the cause number at the top of appellee’s answer was incorrect, the title

clearly identified the document as “Defendant’s Original Answer to Plaintiff’s Second

Original Petition for Bill of Review,” and appellant should have known that the incorrect

cause number was simply a clerical error).

¶12.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Phillips v. Phillips
265 S.E.2d 441 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
American Investors, Inc. v. King
733 So. 2d 830 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1999)
Van Meter v. Alford
774 So. 2d 430 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2000)
Sandlin v. Sandlin
906 So. 2d 39 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2004)
Kaster v. Heinrich
489 N.E.2d 152 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jon Adams v. A & C Entertainment, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jon-adams-v-a-c-entertainment-miss-2007.