Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-20-2024
Case Style:
Sharon Richardson v. The Estate of Thomas James Richardson, et al.
Case Number:
Judge: Dewayne Thomas
Court: Hinds County Chancery Court, Second Judicial District
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Jackson, Mississippi probate lawyers represented the Plaintiff and Defendants in a title dispute.
¶2. Sharon and Thomas were divorced on May 5, 2004. In the chancery court's judgment of divorce, Sharon was granted child support of $175 per month, title to a 1996 Pontiac Grand Prix automobile, and nineteen head of cattle valued at $850 each. Sharon appealed the judgment, which this Court affirmed in part. Richardson v. Richardson, 912 So.2d 1079, 1083 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). We determined, however, that Sharon was entitled to only thirteen head of cattle, and we reversed the judgment in part and remanded "with instructions to determine a more concrete value for the individual cattle, and to then award Sharon cattle equal to one-third of the value of the herd, or if necessary, to direct that the herd be sold, and Sharon be awarded one-third of the proceeds of the sale." Id. at 1082 (¶7).[1] However, the record does not show that the chancery court made any further rulings on the matter.
¶3. Sixteen years later, on December 3, 2021, Sharon filed two notices of liens with the chancery court against two parcels of real property Thomas owned, allegedly in satisfaction of monies owed to Sharon from the 2004 divorce judgment. The stated amount of the lien for each property was $99,869.54. Thomas died shortly thereafter;[2] so Sharon filed a petition to confirm title against the Estate on January 19, 2022, "seeking legal title to the two (2)
3
subject parcels of real property based upon the two (2) liens asserted in this matter." The Estate counterclaimed that (1) because there was no legal basis or statutory authority for the liens, the liens should be expunged from the chancery clerk's records; and (2) Sharon's petition was "frivolous and without substantial justification."
¶4. On October 19, 2022, the Estate filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming (1) Sharon failed to show she did not receive the automobile; (2) there was no judgment from the chancery court on remand regarding the value of the cattle (as ordered by this Court); (3) there had been no "adjudication of past due child support"; and (4) that even if a judgment lien existed, it had expired under statutory law, see Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-47 (Rev. 2019). Sharon filed a response and her own motion for summary judgment. The chancery court held a hearing on February 16, 2023. Sharon's attorney argued that Sharon was owed $99,869.54 according to the lien ($15,000 for the Grand Prix, $5,000 in unpaid child support, $16,150 for the cattle, and $58,301.84 in interest). The Estate's attorney asserted that there had been no judgment enrolled in Hinds County.
¶5. The chancery court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Estate on March 7, 2023. Noting that the divorce judgment referenced in Sharon's petition "was not enrolled in the Hinds County land roll judgments," the chancery court concluded that Sharon had "failed to establish any statutory or common law basis for the asserted liens herein." Sharon filed a motion to reconsider, arguing for the first time that this Court's mandate in Richardson created a debtor-creditor relationship between Thomas and Sharon; therefore, a lien was created under Mississippi Code Annotated
4
section 85-7-261 (Rev. 2021).[3] Sharon also claimed that the chancery clerk's office was responsible for enrolling the judgment under Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-7-189 (Rev. 2019). The Estate noted in its response, however, that section 11-7-189 "outlines the procedure imposed on the circuit clerk to enroll a judgment when a judgment is rendered in circuit (or county) court at the close of the term of circuit (or county) court"; the statute does not address chancery court practice.
¶6. After a hearing, the chancery court denied the motion to reconsider on May 16, 2023. In its order, the court determined that section 85-7-261 was "inapplicable as the liens asserted by [Sharon] are not those 'created and mentioned'" under the statute and because "[t]he cited code section does not address a judgment lien or a lien purportedly based on a divorce decree." The court further found that Sharon "failed to establish any properly enrolled judgment upon which her liens may be predicated; there are no disputed material facts that would alter this finding of law."
¶7. The chancery court entered a final judgment on May 18, 2023, dismissing Sharon's petition to confirm title with prejudice, granting the Estate's counterclaims in part, and expunging the notices of liens from the county land records. Sharon appeals from the chancery court's final judgment.
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: