William Jennings, Jr. v. Rudolph L. McCelleis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CA-00404-COA
WILLIAM JENNINGS, JR.
APPELLANT
v.
RUDOLPH L. MCCELLEIS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
1/10/2007
HON. BOBBY BURT DELAUGHTER
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BILL WALLER
WILLIAM M. DALEHITE
JAMES SETH MCCOY
CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
AFTER TRIAL ON DAMAGES ONLY, MOTION
FOR ADDITUR OR NEW TRIAL DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED-04/29/2008
BEFORE LEE, P.J., BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
On August 3, 2004, William Jennings, Jr. and Rudolph McCelleis were involved in an
automobile accident in Jackson, Mississippi. Jennings subsequently filed a complaint against
McCelleis for negligence and against his insurer, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State
Farm), for bad faith. Both Jennings and McCelleis were insured by State Farm.
¶2.
In his answer to the complaint, McCelleis requested that the cases be severed for trial
because it would be prejudicial to have State Farm sitting as a co-defendant with McCelleis. The
trial judge subsequently entered an order severing the cases for trial purposes only, and both cases
proceeded under the same style and cause number.
¶3.
At the conclusion of the trial dealing with the negligence claim between Jennings and
McCelleis, the jury returned a verdict for Jennings and awarded damages of $5,000. Jennings
subsequently moved for an additur to the damage award or, alternatively, a new trial. The trial court
denied the motion, and it is from that ruling that Jennings now appeals. In response, McCelleis
asserts that this matter is not ripe for appeal because a final judgment has not been rendered.
DISCUSSION
¶4.
McCelleis argues that this case is currently unripe for appeal because a final judgment has
not been rendered by the trial court. In most cases, “only final judgments are appealable.” M.W.F.
v. D.D.F., 926 So. 2d 897, 899 (¶4) (Miss. 2006). “A final, appealable, judgment is one that
‘adjudicates the merits of the controversy and settles all the issues as to all the parties’ and requires
no further action by the lower court.” Walters v. Walters, 956 So. 2d 1050, 1053 (¶8) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2007) (citing Banks v. City Fin. Co., 825 So. 2d 642, 645 (¶9) (Miss. 2002)). The current case
would seem to fail to meet the test given above, as Jennings’s claim against State Farm is still
proceeding in the trial court under the same style and cause number, having been severed only for
the purposes of trial.
¶5.
However, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides an exception to the final
judgment rule. Rule 54(b) allows a trial court to enter a judgment that is considered final but
adjudicates less than all the claims between all the parties in a particular piece of litigation. The rule
states that:
[w]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are
involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but
fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an expressed determination that
there is no just reason for delay and upon an expressed direction for the entry of the
judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other
form of decision, however designated which adjudicates fewer than all of the claims
or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action
2
as to any of the claims or parties and the order or other form of decision is subject
to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and
the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
M.R.C.P. 54(b). An order entered pursuant to Rule 54(b) is considered final for the purposes of
appeal and not interlocutory. Cox v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Friedrichs, Inc., 512 So. 2d 897, 899
(Miss. 1987).
¶6.
However, in order for Rule 54(b) to take effect, the trial court must enter its final judgment
order in a “definite, unmistakable manner.” M.R.C.P. 54(b) cmts. Furthermore, “[a]bsent a
certification under Rule 54(b), any order in a multiple party or multiple claim action, even if it
appears to adjudicate a separable portion of the controversy, is interlocutory.” Id. The Mississippi
Supreme Court has defined Rule 54(b) certification to mean that “a final judgment is certified and
released for appeal in the sound discretion of the trial judge ‘upon an expressed determination that
there is no just reason for delay and upon an expressed direction for the entry of the judgment.’”
Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Curtis Mathes Mfg. Co., 456 So. 2d 750, 753 (Miss. 1984)
(quoting M.R.C.P. 54(b)).
¶7.
In this case, although the judgment order entered was titled “final judgment,” the
requirements of Rule 54(b) have clearly not been met. The order gives no indication that it is meant
to be a final, appealable judgment with respect to Jennings and McCelleis to the exclusion of
Jennings’s cause of action against State Farm, which continues under the same styling and cause
number. The trial court made no express determination that there was no just reason for delay, as
required by the rule, nor did it expressly direct that a final judgment be entered pursuant to Rule
54(b). Accordingly, the current appeal must be considered interlocutory and therefore not ripe for
consideration by this Court.
¶8.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED
TO THE APPELLANT.
3
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ROBERTS
AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. GRIFFIS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
4
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.
