IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-CA-01261-COA 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 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOSEPH KILGORE COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: CARROLL COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHARLIE D. JACKSON (PRO SE) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: G. TODD BURW ELL SAM N. FONDA EMILY KINCSES LINDSAY NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/28/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE BARNES, C.J., TINDELL AND McCARTY, JJ. McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. In this case, we m ust determ ine w hether the chancery court a b u s e d i t s d iscretion in deny ing a m otion f

or clarif ication. Finding no error, we af f irm

. 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 S teen Jr. Both Baldwin and Steen had f iled actions against the Jacksons to q u i e t a nd conf irm t itle to c ertain land located in CarrollCounty , Mississippi. 1 The chancery court ruled in f a vor of Baldwin, p artly in f avor of Steen, and partly in f avor of the Jacksons. The f

inal judgm ent was entered on February 3, 2014. ¶3. On February 18, 2014, the Jacksons f i led a mo t i o n t o a me n d t h e judgm ent under Mississippi Rule of C ivil Procedure 59(e). The c hancery court ruled that t he Rule 59(e)

m otion was un t i me l y a n d without m erit. The chancery court f urther noted that even if the

m otion sought relief under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), i t was w ithout m erit.
2014 Appeal from Final Judgment : Shaffer v
. Baldwin Sand & Gra v e l , N o . 2014-CA-01551 ¶4. The Jacksons t hen appealed the chancery court’s f indings o f f

acts and c onclusions of l a w , 2 t h e f

inal judgm ent, a nd the order deny ing the Rule 59(e) m o tion. Baldwin f iled a

mo t i o n t o dism iss alleging t hat the appeal was untim ely

. The Suprem e Court granted Baldwin’s m otion to dism iss, stating that the Rule 5 9(e) m otion “was untim ely and did not toll the tim e f

or f i ling a notice of appeal.” The Jacksons f i led a m otion to reconsider, but the Suprem e Court denied the m o tion. 2016 Appeal from Contempt Action : Jackson v. Steen , No. 2016-CP-00068 ¶5. O n J a n u ary 14, 2016, the Jacksons f iled a n otice of appeal i n a separate c o n t e mp t action b etween C harlie Ja ckson and S teen. Although the appeal prim a rily concerned the

contem pt action, the notice also i ndicated that the parties intended to challenge the chancery

cou r t ’ s 2014 judgm ent r egarding the land dispute. T he Suprem e Court entered an order

1 T h e tw o actio n s w ere ev en tu ally co n s o lid ated

. 2 O n Jan u ary 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 , th e c h an cery co u rt en tered its f in d i n g s o f f

ac t s an d co n clu s io n s o f

law

. 2noting that t he appeal was lim ited to the contem pt action “and that a ll q

uestions concerning the ownership of the property in question have been a djudicated in p rior proceedings.” The appeal was ultim a tely d ism issed f or the f ailure of the Jacksons to f ile a brief

. The m andate issued July

13, 2017. 2017 Appeal from Denial of the Motion for Clarification ¶6. On March 15, 2017, the Jacksons f iled a m otion f

or clarif i cation in the chancery

court claim ing that the 2014 order d eny ing their Rule 59(e) m otion was not clear. The Jacksons took issue with the f

ollowing language f

rom the c h ancery c ourt’s order: “[ T]o the extent the

m otion m ay be seen as one pursuant to [ Rule] 60(b) rather t h a n [ R u l e ] 5 9, denial is still appropriate

. . . . No exceptional circum stances are present which would call f or r elief f rom the f inal j udgm ent” pursuant to Rule 60(b). During the hearing, the c hancery court noted that the m otion f

or clarif ication was an attem

p t at “another b ite at the trial apple a nd at the appellate apple.” The chancery court denied the m otion , s t a t i n g t hat the 2014 order “does not need clarif

ication and was a f

inal order.” ¶7. Charlie J ackson, acting pro se, f iled a notice of appeal o n behalf of him self and other heirs. 3 Char l i e l i s ts f

if teen issues, all of which attack the chancery court’s f i ndings in the
f inal judgm ent. DISCUSSION

3 Willie Jack so n , o n b e h alf o f L e w is’s e state, also f i led an ap p eal, b u t it w as d ism issed

. A lth o u g h C h arlie claim s to rep r esen t sev eral o th e r h eirs, h e is n o t an atto rn ey an d is p ro h ib ited f

ro m r ep resen t in g an y o n e o th e r th an h i m s elf in co u rt. S ee S a p u ko ta n a v. S a p u ko ta n a , 1 7 9 S o . 3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 1 2 (¶2 0 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 5 ) (“In d iv id u als n o t licen sed t o p ractice law m ay rep resen t th e m s elv es in co u rt, b u t n o t o t h ers.”). 3¶8. As a prelim inary m atter, B aldwin argues that Charlie f ailed to a ddress t

h e central issue

on a ppeal – whether t he chanc e r y court erred in deny ing the m otion f or clarif ication. Although all of h is i ssues on appeal attack the f i nal judgm ent, C harlie does brief ly assert that the chancery

court erred in deny ing his request f or relief under Rule 60(b). ¶9. Our Rules provide t wo avenues to attack a f inal judgm ent: (1) f

ile a m otion f

or a new trial or to alter or am end the judgm ent under Rule 5 9, or (2) f ile a m otion f

or relief f rom the
f inal j udgm ent under Rule 60. The tim ing of the m o tion can d eterm ine whether i t is a Rule 59 or a Rule 60 m otion. City of Jackson v. Jackson Oaks Ltd. P’ship , 792 So. 2d 983, 985 (¶3) (Miss. 2001). Here, the Jacksons f iled a m otion to alter or am end the judgm ent under Rule 59(e). The chancery court determ ined t hat the Rule 59(e) m o tion was untim ely but addressed the m erits under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60. ¶10. Under the guise of seeking clarity , the Jacksons f i led their m otion f

or clarif ication in 2017, seeking relief f

rom the 2014 f

inal judgm ent. During the h e a r i n g on the m otion f or clarif i cation, t h e chancery court determ ined t hat t he m otion was f iled o nly to attack the f

inal judgm ent and denied the m otion. ¶11. The m otion f

or clarif ication was clearly a Rule 60(b) m otion as it sought to a ttack the
f inal judgm e nt. As such, our r e v i e w is lim i ted to whether t he chancery court abused its discretion in deny i ng the m otion. W oods v. V ictory Mktg. LLC , 111 So. 3d 1234, 1237 (¶9) (Miss. C t. App. 2 013). It is well established that a Rule 60(b) m o tion should be d enied where it is m erely an attem

pt to relitigate the case. Id. at ( ¶13). The chancery c ourt held that the Jacksons were attem

pting to do just that.

4¶12. This case began t he bet t e r p a r t o f a d e c a d e ago. The chancery court d ecided the

entirety of the dispute i n 2014. The Jacksons have attem pted to appeal or m odif

y that f inal judgm ent num erous tim es in the f ive y ears since. None of these attem pts ha d m erit, and

m ultiple ef f orts at a ppeal were dism issed as either untim ely or f or f ailure to f ile a brief

. W e
agree with the c hancery c ourt that the Jacksons’ latest ef f ort is y et a nother attem

pt to relitigate t he 2014 f

inal judgm ent. There was no abuse o f discretion i n ref using to grant the

m otion to clarif

y . This litigation m

ust com e to a close. ¶13. Regarding Charlie’s f i f teen assignm ents of error, “[ t]he appeal f rom a denial of a Rule 60(b) m o t i o n b r i ngs up f or review only the order of denial itself and not the underly ing j u d g me n t .” Stevens v. W a de , 214 So. 3d 301, 304 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (int e r n a l quotation m arks om i tted). So we need n o t c o n s i der the underly ing i ssues of the f inal judgm ent. ¶14. As a f

inal m a tter, we n o te that Baldwin f iled a m otion to dism iss this appeal based on the theories of res judicata a nd collater a l estoppel. However, s ince we are af f irm ing the chancery court’s ruling, we f ind it unnece s s a ry to address the m erits of this m otion. Baldwin’s m otion to dism iss the appeal is denied as m oot. ¶15. AFFIRMED. BARNES, C.J., C ARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBR O O K S, TINDELL, McDONALD, LAWRENCE AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.

5