Voncile Odom v. The Public Employees' Retirement System
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-CA-02104-COA
VONCILE ODOM
APPELLANT
v.
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
5/21/2003
HON. W. SWAN YERGER
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GEORGE S. LUTER
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: MARY MARGARET BOWERS
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO APPEAL WAS
DENIED.
AFFIRMED - 12/14/2004
BEFORE LEE, P.J., MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
On October 22, 2002, the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)
denied Voncile Odom's application for disability benefits. On December 12, 2002, in the Hinds County
Circuit Court, Odom filed her notice of appeal along with a motion to extend time to file her notice of
appeal. PERS subsequently filed a response to Odom's motion for extension of time. The trial judge
entered an order on January 3, 2003, denying Odom's motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal.
Odom then filed a motion to reconsider. A hearing was held on the matter on May 12, 2003, and, on May
21, 2003, the trial judge again denied Odom's motion.
¶2.
On August 1, 2003, Odom filed a motion to reopen time to appeal pursuant to Rule 4(h) of the
Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure on the basis that she was not informed of the denial of her motion
for reconsideration. On September 5, 2003, the trial judge entered an order allowing time to appeal to this
Court for a period of fourteen days. Subsequently, Odom filed her appeal to this Court, asserting the
following:
I. The Circuit Court erred in not exercising its discretion in determining whether or not the
appellant had shown excusable neglect such as to allow the Circuit Court to Extend the Time to
file her appeal from a denial of disabilitybenefits by the Public Employees' Retirement System since
PERS Rules of Procedure and Practice allow the Circuit Court to extend the time to appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. DID THE TRIAL JUDGE ABUSE HIS DISCRETION IN DENYING ODOM'S MOTION
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL?
¶3.
In her only issue, Odom argues that the trial judge erred in not considering whether excusable
neglect existed so as to allow her an extension to file her appeal. Specifically, Odom states that the trial
judge had the authority to extend the time to appeal but rather the trial judge automatically denied her
motion and failed to consider whether excusable neglect existed pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Appellate
Procedure 4(g).
¶4.
In determining whether a trial judge erred in failing to grant a motion for an extension of time, the
proper standard of review is abuse of discretion. Matter of Estate of Ware, 573 So. 2d 773, 776 (Miss.
1990). According to Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(g), a trial court may, in its discretion,
extend the time for filing a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect.
2
¶5.
Although Odom claims that the trial judge never considered whether excusable neglect existed, that
issue, among others, was discussed at the May 12, 2003, hearing on the matter. At the end of the hearing
the trial judge stated that he would examine the case and consider the evidence on the pertinent issues
before ruling. In his ruling the trial judge stated simply that "having considered Appellant's motion,
Appellee's [r]esponse, and oral arguments, is of the opinion that the motion is not well-taken and should
be denied." Under these facts, we decline to find that the trial judge abused his discretion in failing to
specifically delineate his reasons for denying the motion. The parties were aware of the issues the trial
judge was ruling on as they had previously argued the issues before the trial judge. Finding no merit to this
issue, we affirm.
¶6.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED.
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE,
JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.