CHARLIE D. JACKSON APPELLANT
BALDWIN SAND & GRAVEL, A DIVISION OF W.G. YATES & SONS, AND JERRY STEEN JR. APPELLEES
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
BARNES, C.J., TINDELL AND McCARTY, JJ.
In this case, we must determine whether the chancery court
abused its discretion in denying a motion for clarification.
Finding no error, we affirm.
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. 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.
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
The Jacksons then appealed the chancery court's findings
of facts and conclusions of law,  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
2016 Appeal from Contempt Action: Jackson v.
Steen, No. 2016-CP-00068
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 ...