Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Baldwin Sand & Gravel

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

May 28, 2019

CHARLIE D. JACKSON APPELLANT
v.
BALDWIN SAND & GRAVEL, A DIVISION OF W.G. YATES & SONS, AND JERRY STEEN JR. APPELLEES

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/09/2017

          CARROLL COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, HON. JOSEPH KILGORE TRIAL JUDGE

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHARLIE D. JACKSON (PRO SE)

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: G. TODD BURWELL SAM N. FONDA EMILY KINCSES LINDSAY

          BEFORE BARNES, C.J., TINDELL AND McCARTY, JJ.

          McCARTY, J.

         ¶1. In this case, we must determine whether the chancery court abused its discretion in denying a motion for clarification. Finding no error, we affirm.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶2. This case began as a land dispute between the heirs of Queen M. Jackson Lewis (the Jacksons) and Baldwin Sand & Gravel and Jerry Steen Jr. Both Baldwin and Steen had filed actions against the Jacksons to quiet and confirm title to certain land located in Carroll County, Mississippi.[1] The chancery court ruled in favor of Baldwin, partly in favor of Steen, and partly in favor of the Jacksons. The final judgment was entered on February 3, 2014.

         ¶3. On February 18, 2014, the Jacksons filed a motion to amend the judgment under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The chancery court ruled that the Rule 59(e) motion was untimely and without merit. The chancery court further noted that even if the motion sought relief under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), it was without merit.

2014 Appeal from Final Judgment: Shaffer v. Baldwin Sand & Gravel, No. 2014-CA-01551

         ¶4. The Jacksons then appealed the chancery court's findings of facts and conclusions of law, [2] the final judgment, and the order denying the Rule 59(e) motion. Baldwin filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the appeal was untimely. The Supreme Court granted Baldwin's motion to dismiss, stating that the Rule 59(e) motion "was untimely and did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal." The Jacksons filed a motion to reconsider, but the Supreme Court denied the motion.

2016 Appeal from Contempt Action: Jackson v. Steen, No. 2016-CP-00068

         ¶5. On January 14, 2016, the Jacksons filed a notice of appeal in a separate contempt action between Charlie Jackson and Steen. Although the appeal primarily concerned the contempt action, the notice also indicated that the parties intended to challenge the chancery court's 2014 judgment regarding the land dispute. The Supreme Court entered an order noting that the appeal was limited to the contempt action "and that all questions concerning the ownership of the property in question have been adjudicated in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.