Case ID: so2d_820/html/0675-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McRAE, P.J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEW BELLUM HOMES, INC. v. Keith and Billie Jean GIFFIN.
    No. 98-CT-00417-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    June 27, 2002.
   ORDER

Motion for Rehearing En Banc to Suspend Rule 2(c) and Correct Two Orders of this Court dated May 25, 2001, and May 27, 2001, is denied to the extent that it seeks further rehearing in this cause. This Court’s order filed May 31, 2001, is vacated to the extent that it assessed a fifteen percent penalty against New Bel-lum. The mandate issued in this cause is hereby recalled and modified to read: “The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed except as to the drainage issue which is reversed. Judgment is rendered against the appellees in the amount of $37,983.43’.

McRAE, P.J., DISSENTS TO THE ORDER WITH SEPERATE WRITTEN OPINION.’ DIAZ, J„ DOES NOT JOIN. WALLER and GRAVE, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.

McRAE, P.J.,

Dissenting.

This writer must respond to the personal assertions authored by the Chief Justice. The original opinion of New Bellum Homes, Inc. v. Giffin, 784 So.2d 139 (Miss. 2001), was published February 1, 2001, in which all but one Justice concurred at that time. Since then there have been two motions for rehearing, a motion to clarify, and more importantly, our opinion has now been published in West over a year ago and should have been deemed final. Our rules do not allow what has occurred with the majority’s order of the Chief Justice. The fifteen percent penalty was assessed according to the statute and the rules of this Court, since the judgment below was affirmed in toto. The original opinion authored by this writer was reviewed and voted on by the Court. No one asked for changes. When it was reviewed two other times on motion for rehearing and clarification, the majority of the Court, including the Chief Justice, denied it. Now a year and a half after the opinion was published and more than a year after the mandate was issued and in contravention of our rules, this Court is now granting by order that which it denied in our published opinion. One Justice cannot single handedly do anything; it takes a majority.

Accordingly, I dissent to this order as we should not' give special treatment to individuals or certain parties.