Before Sullivan, P.j., Banks And Roberts, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roberts, Justice,
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/17/97
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MELVIN McCLURE
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: TATE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/14/99
¶1. The course of the proceedings in this case are quite complex due to several transfers between chancery and circuit court over the course of six (6) years.
¶2. The Appellants, Aaron N. Ray and Mary Lou Ray (hereinafter "the Rays"), filed suit in the Tate County Circuit Court on October 1, 1991, alleging intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation during a land transaction with the Appellee, Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc., (hereinafter "Tower Loan"). However, the case was not scheduled for trial until February 14, 1994. On December 21, 1993, counsel for Tower Loan moved the court to transfer the cause to the Chancery Court of Tate County. Tower Loan made the motion on the grounds that, in addition to the Rays' tort claims, they had pled, alternatively, that a mutual mistake had been made and that the deed should be rescinded. The Court granted Tower Loan's motion on February 4, 1994.
¶3. After the Circuit Court transferred the case to the Chancery Court, the Rays moved to amend their complaint to remove their request for equitable relief and to transfer the action back to Circuit Court. The Chancellor permitted the Rays to amend and ordered the action transferred back to Circuit Court on August 16, 1994. The Chancellor also dismissed the Rays' alternative claim for mutual mistake and recission with prejudice.
¶4. On August 24, 1994, Tower Loan petitioned for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the Chancellor's order transferring the action to Circuit Court. The Chancellor denied the petition on September 1, 1994. Tower Loan then petitioned this Court for permission to file an interlocutory appeal and again was denied by an order of this Court.
¶5. The record reflects that the order we issued was unclear as to where the case should be heard. On November 15, 1995, after some dispute between the parties and the Chancellor as to the meaning and effect of our order, the Rays made a motion for clarification. In response, we held that the case should be heard in the Chancery Court.
¶6. On January 26, 1996, Chancellor Dennis M. Baker recused himself and transferred the matter to Chancellor Melvin McClure, Jr., for hearing and Conclusion. Nearly six (6) years after the complaint was filed, the case proceeded to trial on May 1, 1997. After hearing the testimony of the witnesses, reviewing the exhibits and hearing the arguments of counsel, the Chancellor found no intentional or negligent misrepresentation. Instead he ordered, the deed to be rescinded.
¶7. On May 27, 1997, the Rays then moved for a new trial or to amend the judgment to award pre-judgment interest. The court denied the motion on June 23, 1997. Aggrieved by the decision of the Chancellor, the ...