DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/13/2013.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: PANOLA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. PERCY L. LYNCHARD JR. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR FINDINGS BY THE COURT DENIED.
FOR APPELLANTS: RANDOLPH WALKER.
FOR APPELLEES: ETHEL BUTLER (PRO SE), C.W. PRIDE (PRO SE), ROBERT PRIDE (PRO SE), HERMAN PRIDE (PRO SE), HESTER BURNETT (PRO SE), JIMMIE ELAINE ELLIS (PRO SE), DONALD PRIDE (PRO SE), TERRY L. ELLIS (PRO SE), ROSETTER PRIDE PICKENS (PRO SE), MARY ANN PRIDE SIMMONS (PRO SE), FLOSSIE DELONEY BROWN (PRO SE), RIVERS PRIDE JR. (PRO SE).
ROBERTS, J., FOR THE COURT. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ., CONCUR. CARLTON, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. ISHEE, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY BARNES AND JAMES, JJ.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
¶1. This appeal stems from a disagreement regarding the partition of approximately 150 acres among siblings, and the Panola County Chancery Court's order to sell a house and one acre of property that surrounds it. Six years after the chancellor ordered that the house be sold at a public auction, brothers Daniel and William Pride (collectively " William" ) filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The chancellor denied his motion. William then asked the chancellor for written findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding his decision to deny his motion. The chancellor declined. On appeal, William claims that the chancellor erred when he denied his Rule 60(b) motion. He also claims that he was entitled to written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. The present appeal represents the aftermath of Pride v. Pride, 60 So.3d 208 (Miss.Ct.App. 2011), in which we stated:
In May 2005, Rivers Pride, Robert Pride, C.W. Pride, Herman Pride, Ethel Butler, Hester Burnette, Virgie Deloney, Terry Ellis, and Jimmie Elaine Ellis (collectively " Rivers" ) filed a complaint . . . against their brothers, William . . . and Daniel . . . (collectively " William" ). Rivers asked for a " partition in kind or by sale" of approximately 150 acres, including a home, inherited from W.E. Pride and Savannah Pride. William filed a counterclaim, also seeking a partition. The record indicates Rivers wanted to divide the property equally, while William wanted to sell the entire 150 acres.
The chancellor appointed a three-member commission to survey the property and determine if it could be divided equally. In September 2006, the commission submitted a report, recommending a partition in kind of the land into ten tracts, except for the one-acre homesite, which the commission recommended should be sold. The chancery court held a hearing on November 21, 2006. At the hearing, William objected to the commissioners' report, arguing all the land should be sold. Rivers, however, agreed with the commissioners' report. When William suggested the property be appraised before deciding if it should be partitioned in kind, Rivers responded that no appraisal was necessary because each party would receive one[-]tenth of the total value of the property, regardless of what the total was.
On December 19, 2006, the chancery court entered an order adopting the commissioners' report. The chancery court found [that] " a partition in kind would promote the interest of all co-tenants and a sale of the one-acre house site at partition sale would promote the interest of all co-tenants . . . ." The next day, the chancery court issued a notice of sale of the homesite. The sale never took place.
On December 22, 2006, William filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing there was insufficient evidence for a partition in kind. Rivers ...