Jake Statham v. Eric Miller
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CA-00728-COA
JAKE STATHAM
APPELLANT
v.
ERIC MILLER
DATE OF 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:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
4/17/2007
HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS, JR.
OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CHARLES T. YOSTE
KEVIN DALE CAMP
CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL
INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSED APPELLANT’S
APPEAL AND REINSTATED THE CASE IN
JUSTICE COURT
REVERSED AND REMANDED - 7/22/2008
EN BANC.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Jake Statham appeals the order of the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County that dismissed Eric
Miller’s appeal of a justice court judgment entered against Miller. We find reversible error and
remand for further proceedings.
FACTS
¶2.
Statham filed suit against Miller in the Oktibbeha County Justice Court. Statham’s
complaint alleged a claim for assault and battery and demanded damages in the amount of $2,500
and all costs. On February 9, 2005, the justice court entered a judgment against Miller in the amount
of $2,500 plus the court costs of $54, for a total judgment in the amount of $2,554.
¶3.
On February 18, 2005, Miller filed a notice of appeal to the circuit court. At the bottom of
the notice, the name “Jake Statham” appeared over the signature of Miller’s attorney of record in
the case. On February 24, 2005, an amended notice of appeal was filed, substituting the name “Eric
Miller” for the name “Jake Statham.”
¶4.
The circuit court set a pretrial conference for April 17, 2006. On April 11, 2006, Statham
filed a motion to amend ad damnum clause. The motion to amend asked to increase his damage
demand in excess of $10,000 and requested that he be allowed to include claims for punitive
damages and attorney’s fees.
¶5.
The record is silent until June 9, 2006, when the circuit court entered an order that dismissed
Miller’s appeal and reinstated the case on the justice court’s docket. This order provided neither a
reason for the dismissal nor a rule of procedure under which the case was dismissed. In the order,
the circuit judge ruled as follows:
THIS DAY, this cause came on to be heard on the motion of the defendant
requesting this Court to dismiss the appeal filed herein, and to remand this case to
the docket of the Justice Court of Oktibbeha County, Mississippi.
IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appeal herein be and
the same is hereby dismissed and said cause be remanded for reinstatement on the
docket of the Justice Court of Oktibbeha County, Mississippi.
IT IS, FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all costs herein are hereby
taxed to the Defendant,
IT IS, FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the cash bond deposited by
the Defendant with the Circuit Court will be used to satisfy the Judgment of the
Justice Court.
¶6.
No motion to dismiss was filed or contained in the record. In addition, there is neither a
notice of hearing for the matter to be considered nor a transcript of a hearing or other proceeding
where the circuit court heard argument or considered this action. The order does not indicate that
it was an action taken sua sponte.
2
¶7.
Thereafter, on June 21, 2006, Statham filed a motion for relief from the judgment. Statham
argued: (1) that there had been no motion pending to dismiss the appeal; (2) that Statham’s attorney
was not presented with any motion or any correspondence concerning the order that dismissed his
appeal; (3) that the circuit court had not ruled on his motion to amend ad damnum clause to increase
damages; (4) that the dismissal was not in accordance with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41;
and (5) that Mississippi law did not provide for dismissal and reinstatement because, once appealed
from the justice court, the circuit court has original jurisdiction in the matter.
¶8.
On April 17, 2007, the circuit court entered an order denying Statham’s motion for relief
from judgment. The order held:
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has presented no new evidence to cause the Court
to reinstate this appeal to the Court’s active docket. Furthermore, upon additional
review of this file, the Court finds that the notice of appeal in this matter was
incorrectly filed originally, mistakenly citing the party for whom the appeal was
being sought. Therefore, the Court finds that pursuant to Rule 12.02(a) of the
Mississippi Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules [sic], this appeal should be
dismissed with prejudice and with costs.
¶9.
Aggrieved by this order, Statham timely filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, Statham argues
that the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal and denied him due process by
dismissing Miller’s appeal without a motion and without notice.
DISCUSSION
¶10.
The trial of cases appealed from justice court to circuit court is governed in part by
Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-51-91 (Rev. 2002), which states that “the case shall be tried
anew, in a summary way, without pleadings in writing. . . .”
¶11.
Our appellate courts have interpreted section 11-51-91 to provide that appeals from justice
court to circuit court are to proceed by trial de novo. See, e.g., Franklin Collection Serv. v. Stewart,
863 So. 2d 925, 929 (¶10) (Miss. 2003); Walker v. Benz, 914 So. 2d 1262, 1267 (¶15) (Miss. Ct.
3
App. 2005) (citation omitted)); see also URCCC 5.01 (“Direct appeals from justice court and
municipal court shall be by trial de novo.”). The appeal proceeds in the circuit court “as if a
complaint and answer had been filed . . . .” URCCC 5.07. Further, the proceedings on appeal to
the circuit court are “governed by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, where applicable . . .
.” Id.
¶12.
Statham argues that the circuit judge abused his discretion in dismissing the appeal. Statham
is indeed correct that dismissals of civil actions are governed by Rule 41 of the Mississippi Rules
of Civil Procedure. Statham argues that the circuit court’s order of dismissal was not in accordance
with Rule 41. Further, Statham contends that the circuit court erred in dismissing the appeal under
Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court 12.02, which is limited in its application to criminal
proceedings. Finally, Statham argues that the circuit court should have heard his motion to amend
ad damnum clause. We agree.
¶13.
First, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41 governs the “Dismissal of Actions.” The order
of dismissal states that the matter came on the “motion of the defendant requesting this Court to
dismiss the appeal filed herein.” The clerk’s docket entry does not indicate that a written motion
to dismiss was filed. There is no transcript of a proceeding that would indicate that an oral motion
was presented to the court. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis under Rule 41 for the circuit
court to have dismissed this action.
¶14.
Second, the circuit court’s order dated April 17, 2007, provides that the order is dismissed
under “Rule 12.02(a) of the Mississippi Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules [sic] . . . .”
However, Rule 6.01 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court clearly provides “Rule Series
6 through 12 are applicable only to criminal proceedings.” Thus, Rule 12.02 has no bearing on a
civil appeal.
4
¶15.
Finally, we consider the general law affecting an appeal from justice court. An appeal from
a judgment in justice or municipal court is taken to the circuit court or to the county court, if the
county has one. Once the appeal is perfected, the circuit court has original jurisdiction over the case.
¶16.
In Lucedale Commercial Co. v. Strength, 163 Miss. 346, 352-53, 141 So. 769, 769 (1932),
the Mississippi Supreme Court held:
When a cause is removed to the circuit court on appeal from a justice of the peace
court, the jurisdiction acquired by the circuit court is not in any proper sense
appellate. The circuit court, in such cases, has no authority to merely review and
affirm or reverse the judgment of the justice of the peace, but the case must be tried
anew as if it were originally instituted in the circuit court, with the single exception
that written pleadings are not required. And the jurisdiction to consider such cases
de novo on appeal, and, decide them according to the law and the evidence,
independent of the rulings and judgment of the lower court, is original and not
appellate.
(Emphasis added).
¶17.
As soon as Miller filed a notice of appeal and jurisdiction vested in the Circuit Court of
Oktibbeha County, the case was to proceed to trial de novo in the circuit court. Recognizing that
the circuit court has original jurisdiction, and the case is to be judged anew, Miller can only argue
that the circuit court should cap the damages at the justice court’s jurisdictional limits. While we
find that this argument is misguided, we recognize that there is authority for this principle.
¶18.
Professor Jeffrey Jackson, in his treatise on Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, provides
the following discussion on an appeal from a judgment in justice court:
The appeal is by trial de novo and it proceeds as if a complaint and answer had been
filed. The circuit court can require supplemental pleadings to clarify the issues.
Proceedings are governed by the civil rules. The plaintiff has the privilege of
seeking a larger judgment so long as it does not exceed the justice court jurisdictional
amount.
Jeffrey Jackson, Mississippi Civil Procedure, vol. 2. § 17:2, p. 17-25 (2007).
¶19.
We agree with the legal principle Professor Jackson states in the first two sentences, but we
5
reject the principle stated in the final sentence. This statement in the final sentence is based on the
decision in Hobbs Auto Co. v. Jones, 140 Miss. 610, 105 So. 764 (1925). In Hobbs, the supreme
court held that on appeal it was not permissible to increase the amount sued for above the justice
court’s jurisdiction. Id. at 614, 105 So. at 765. Hobbs was decided in 1925. Approximately seven
years later, in 1932, the supreme court decided Strength, where the court held that “the case must
be tried anew as if it were originally instituted in the circuit court, with the single exception that
written pleadings are not required.” Strength, 163 Miss. at 353, 141 So. at 769. In addition, on
January 1, 1982, the supreme court ordered that the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure be put in
effect and they “govern procedure in circuit courts . . . in all suits of a civil nature. . . .” M.R.C.P.
1.
¶20.
The Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in justice court. Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial
Performance v. Peyton, 812 So. 2d 204, 206 (¶5) (Miss. 2002). However, when Miller appealed
from the justice court to the circuit court, the circuit court gained original jurisdiction, not appellate
jurisdiction, and should therefore follow the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 15,
Statham should have been allowed to amend his pleadings.
¶21.
Under Rule 15, an amendment should only be denied if the amendment would cause actual
prejudice to the opposing party. Beverly v. Powers, 666 So. 2d 806, 809 (Miss. 1995); Coleman v.
Smith, 841 So. 2d 192, 194-95 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). Miller would suffer no prejudice here
if Statham were to amend his pleadings, especially since it was Miller who chose to appeal to the
circuit court and invoke the original jurisdiction of the circuit court.
¶22.
Miller argues that Statham may not increase the amount of damages because that would
defeat the justice court’s jurisdictional limit of $2,500, which is the ceiling amount on civil claims
in Mississippi justice courts. Miss. Code Ann. § 9-11-9 (Rev. 2002).
6
¶23.
This argument fails. When Miller appealed to the circuit court, the circuit court gained
original jurisdiction and the case was to be tried de novo, which means that the case will be tried
anew. Strength, 163 Miss. at 353, 141 So. at 769. Since the circuit court has original jurisdiction,
the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure must be followed. We find that the circuit court failed to
follow these rules. Under Rule 15, Statham should have been granted an opportunity to amend his
pleadings. The case should then be decided based on the jurisdiction of the circuit court and not the
jurisdiction of the justice court.
¶24.
Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's order of dismissal and remand this case to the
Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶25. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OKTIBBEHA COUNTY
DISMISSING THE APPEAL IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLEE.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND
ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. CARLTON, J.,
NOT PARTICIPATING.
7
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.
