### Ov id, Fa sti , bk. I. 1 I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - EC - 0 2 0 9 6 - S CT J UDY SUM

NER
v. CI TY OFCOM O DEM OCRAT IC EXEC UTI VE COM M I TT EE AND M

AYOR AZ

RI A LE W ERS D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 02/ 2006 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. S HARI ON R. AYCOCK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: P ANO LA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : S T E VE N W
. P I T T M AN GE RA L D W
. CH AT HAM AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : E L L I S T UR NAGE SAN FORD E. KN OTT N A TU RE O F TH E C A SE: CI V I L - ELE CT I O N CO N TEST D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 01/ 17/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: “How l i t t l e you know aboutthe age y ou l i ve i n i f you thi nk thathoney is s w eeterthan c a sh in h a n d .” – O v id 1 ¶1
. Ju d y S u m n er’s “P eti ti o n for Ju d ici al R ev iew o f P ri m ary R u n o ff E lecti o n for M ay o r, C i ty of C om o” w as di s m i s s ed f orl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, bas ed upon an a l l eged f ai l ur e t o compl y s tr i ct l y w i t h the cos t - bond pr ovi s i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed S ect i on 23 -15-927 (R ev. 20 07 ). F rom that ruli ng , this app eal proceed s.O n J anuary 23, 2006, Sum nerf i l ed hera m ended pet i t i on f orj udi ci al r evi ew , addi ng 2 L e w e rs a s a d e fe n d a n t. 

### 2 FACTS ¶2. O n M ay 3, 2005, the pr i m ary el ect i on for the D emocr at i c nom i nat i on f or M ayorof th e C ity o f C o m o w a s h e ld . O n M a y 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , a ru n o ff e lec tio n fo r th a t n o m in a tio n w a s h e ld betw een J udy Sum nerand A zr i a Lew ers . T her eaf t er , the C om o D emocr at i c Execut i ve C om m i t t e e ( “ CD EC ” ) mett o c a nv a s s the v ot e s a nd c e r t i f i e d Lewer s a s the wi nn e r . T he C D E C declar ed thatL ew ers had recei ved 31 0 v otes and S um ner had recei ved 30 2 v otes . ¶ 3
. By l e t t e rda t e d J u n e 2, 20 0 5 , Su mne rs u b mi t t e d a f o r ma l p r o t e s tt o th e CD EC
co n test ing the e lecti o n resu lt s, all eg ing “frau d , b ri b ery an d that inap p rop ria te b a ll o ts w ere count ed. ” Thats ame day, Sum nergave w r i t t en not i ce t o the C om o M uni ci pal C our tC l erk, “r eques t i ng a ful l exam i nat i on of the m ayor ’ s el ect i on bal l otbox and i t s cont ent s pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i p p i Cod e Ann o t a t e d Se c t i o n 2 3
- 1 5
- 9 1 1
. ” By l e t t e rd a t e d J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 5 , th e CD EC d e n ied S u m n e r re lief, a d d in g th a t “[a ]ny p ro o f y o u m ig h t h a v e o f fra u d o r b rib e ry n e e d s to b e p r e s e n t e d b e f

o r e th i s c o mm i t t e e . An y f u r th e ra c t i o n s a r e s u b

j e c tt o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w. ” On Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , S u m n e r file d h e r p e tit io n fo r ju d icia l re v iew , n a m in g C D E C a s th e o n ly def endant
. A l ong w i th the pet i t i on, Sum nerpr ovi ded a c os tbond cons i s t i ng of $300 cas h. 2 O n J ul y 1, 2005, thi s C our tent er ed an or derap po i nt i ng the H onor abl e Shar i on A ycock a s S pecial Judg e “t o p res i de an d co nd uct pr oceed i ng s . . . p ursuantto and b y authori ty o f M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 2 3 -1 5 -9 5 1 a n d § 9 -1 -1 0 5 .” ¶4. A t the N ovember 3, 2006, hear i ng i n the C i r cui t C our t of the Fi r s t J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof Panol a C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , the C D E C advanc ed an or e t enus m ot i on t o di s m i s s f orl ack of

### The CDEC maintaine d that “thecost bond re quirem ent

of the s tatut e i s m andator y 3 

### and i n thi s abs e nc e of

thec os t bo nd and thef a i lure t o s tri c t ly c om

ply w i th thes t at

utory requ irements, . . . th e [c]ourt d oesn ’t hav e jurisd ictionto p roceedonthis matter.” 3 s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, bas ed upon Su m ner’ s al l eged fai l ure t o co m ply w i th the cost -bond pr ovi s i ons of

M i s s i s s i ppi Code A nnot at ed Sect i on 23- 15- 927. T he ci r cui tcourtconcl uded 3 th a t: the fai lure to po st the b o n d an d t o stri ctl y co m p ly w ith th e sta tu te is j ur i s di ct i onal ; thatbeca us e the bond w as notpos t ed, i ti s a def ectthatcannot be cur ed t oday; and, the [ c] our ti s goi ng t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on f orj udi ci al r evi ew i n thi s c aus e numberand i n partdoi ng s o bas ed on R ul e 12( h) ( 3) w hi ch does i ndi cat e that , “[ i ] f the C our tl acks j uri sdi ct i on, thati ts hal l di s m i s s the act i on ortr ans f

eri tt o a courtof

ap propri at e j ur i s di ct i on. ” Ther e bei ng no courtt o t r ans f

erthi s m att ert o, the mat t eri s di s m i s s ed. T he ci r cui tcour t ’ s orde rgra nt i ng t he m ot i on t o di s m i s s s t at ed thats ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on
w as l acki ng becaus e t he cos t - bond provi s i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 23- 15- 9 2 7 is “ ju ri s d ic tio n a l, m a n d a to ry , a n d m u s t b e s tr ic tly c o n s tru e d a n d c o m p li e d w ith .” T h e re a fte r, S u m n e r file d a m o tio n to se t as id e th a t o rd e r. T h e c irc u it co u rt su b se q u e n tly i s s ued an or derdenyi ng Sum ner ’ s m ot i on, agai n f i ndi ng the cos t - bond pr ovi s i ons of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 23- 15- 927 t o be j ur i s di ct i onal and hol di ng thatthe $300
cas h r ece i ved by t he ci r cui tcl erk di d nots at i s f y that“mandat ory” pr ovi s i on. Fur therm or e, the ci r cui tcourtf

ound t hatSum ner ’ s “f

ai l ur e t o pos ta cos tbond as pre s cr i bed by M i s s . C ode A nn. § 23- 15- 927 ( 1972) w i th tw o ( 2) orm or e s uf f i ci ents ur et i es i s j ur i s di ct i onal and ca nnot b e c u re d
. . . . ” T h e re fo re , the p e tit io n fo r ju d icia l re v iew w a s d ism iss e d fo r fa ilu re to c o m p ly
w ith M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 2 3 -15 -92 7 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ).

### 4 A N A L Y S IS I. W h eth er th e circ u it c o u rt p ro p er ly in ter p re ted a n d c o n stru ed th e c o stbond provi s i on of

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnotat ed Sect i on 23- 15- 927. ¶ 5
. “ In a n e le c tio n co n tes t, th e sta n d a rd o f re v iew fo r q u e stio n s o f l a w is d e n o v o .” Ga r n e rv. S ta te De mo c r a ti c E x e c . Co mm. , 956 So. 2d 906, 909 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng L adner
v. N ecais e , 7 7 1 S o . 2 d 3 5 3 , 3 5 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶6. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 23- 15- 927 s t at es , i n pert i nentpart , thata pet i t i on fo r ju d icia l re v iew o f a n e lec tio n c o n tes t:
s hal l notbe f

i l ed unl es s i tbearthe cert i f i cat e of tw o ( 2) pr act i ci ng at t orneys th a t th e y an d ea c h o f th e m h a v e fu lly m a d e a n in d e p e n d e n t in v e stig a tio n in to the mat t er s of

f actand of

l aw upon w hi ch the pr ot es tand pet i t i on ar e bas ed and thataf

t ers uch i nves t i gat i on they ver i l y bel i eve thatthe s ai d pr ot es tand pet i t i on s houl d be s us t ai ned and t hat t he re l i ef ther ei n pr ayed s houl d be gr ant ed, and the pet i t i onershal lgi ve a cos tbond i n the s um of Thre e H undr ed D ol lars ( $300. 00) , w i th tw o (

2) orm or e s uf

f i ci ent s ur et i es condi t i oned t o pay al lcos t s i n case his pet i t i on be dis m is s ed , and an a ddi t i onal bond m ay be r equi r ed, by t he j udge orchance l l or , i f neces s ary, atany subs equents t age of the pr ocee di ngs . T he f

i l i ng of s uch pet i t i on forj udi ci al re vi ew i n the manner s etf or th above s hal l aut om at i cal l y s uper cede an d sus pend the oper at i on and ef f ectof the or der , rul i ng orj udgm entof the exe cut i ve comm i t t ee appeal ed f r o m. M i s s . Code A nn. § 23- 15- 927 ( R ev. 2007) ( emphasi s a dded)
. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , Sum ner pr ovide d a cos tbond cons i s t i ng of $300 cas h atthe t i m e s he f i l ed herpet i t i on f

orj udi ci al
re v iew , w ith o u t n a m in g “ tw o (2 ) o r m o re su ffic ien t su re ties co n d iti o n e d to p a y a ll co sts in
ca se [h er] p eti ti o n b e d ism issed
. . . . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 3 -15 -92 7 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ).

### In Watersv. Gnemi , 907 So. 2d 307 (Mi ss . 2005) , this Court found the provis ion 4 

### provi ding t

hat the petitione r att ac h theprot es t or com plaint that ha d bee n fi le d with the executive co mmittee to h is petitio n fo r jud icial reviewto b e a jurisd iction al requ irement. See id . at 319. Sim il arly, thi s Cour t ha s f ound theprovi si on re garding t he inclusi on of “ the ce rtif ic at e of two ( 2) prac ti cing attor neys ” wi th t

he petition for j udic ia l revi ew t o be a jurisd iction al requ irement. See id . at 32 2. A “bond” ha s been de f

i ned as “[ a] w r i t t en and s eal ed obl i gat i on, e s p. one r equi r i ng 5 paymentof

a s t i pul at ed amountof m oney on orbef

or e a gi ven day[ , ] ” W ebs t er ’ s I I N ew C ol l ege D i ct i onary 126 ( 3d ed. 2001) ; “a w r i t t en pr om i s e t o pay a de btort o do s om e ac t (e .g ., a n a p p e a l b o n d )[ ,]” B ry a n A . G a rn e r, A D i ct i onar y of M oder n LegalU

s age 113 (2d e d. 1 9 9 5 ); o r “ a n . . . a g re e m e n t w h e re b y a p e rso n o r c o rp o ra tio n b e c o m e s a su re ty to p a y , w ith in def i ned l i m i t s , f

ora f i nanci al l os s s uf

f er ed by a s econd pe r s on undercert ai n ci r cumst ance s ( e. g. , a bai l bond, del i very bond, i ndemni ty bond, orj udi ci al bond)
. ” Id
. See al s o B lack ’s L aw D i ct i onary 416 ( 4 ed. 1968) ( def i ni ng “cos tbond” as “ [ a] bond gi ven by a pa r ty t o an th ac ti o n to se cu re the ev en tual p ay m en t of su ch co sts as m ay b e a w ard ed ag ains t him
. ”). 

### 5 ¶7. L i ke other pr ovi s i ons i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 23- 15- 927 w hi ch have b e e n d e e m e d ju risd ictio n a l, th is C o u rt fin d s th a t th e c o st-b o n d p ro v isi o n a lso is 4 j ur i s di ct i onal
. H ow ever , unl i ke the ci r cui tcourt , t hi s C our tf i nds thatthe cos tbond pr ovi ded by Sum nerw as s uff

i ci ent and thati ts at i s f

i es the j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ementof the s t atut e. T he l ow ercourt ’ s err orl i es i n f i ndi ng thatthe $300 ca s h r ece i ved by the ci r cui tcl erk f ai l ed to s a tis fy th e c o s t- b o n d p ro v is io n o f M is s is s ip p i C o d e A n n o ta te d S e c tio n 2 3 -1 5 -9 2 7 . A bond i s a pl edge orguar ant ee f orthe f ul f i l l m entof

an undert aki ng. B y payi ng cas h, Sum ner 5 compl et ed the undert aki ng, thus no s ur ety orguar ant orw as r equi r ed t o pr om i s e per f or m ance
o f tha t w hich al ready h ad b een ac com pli shed. A s Su m ner provided i n cash the st atutory
m axi m um amount , i ps o f act o, t he cos t - bond pr ovi s i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nn ot at ed Sect i on 23- 15- 927 w as s at i s f i ed.

### 6 CO NC L US I ON ¶8. Forthe f

or egoi ng r eas ons , thi s Courtf i nds thatthe cos t - bond pr ovi s i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 23- 15- 927 i s j ur i s di ct i onal
. H ow ever , thi s C our tf ur therconcl udes th a t th e $ 3 0 0 c o st b o n d m a n d a ted th e re b y w a s s a tisfie d b y S u m n e r, in c a sh , at th e o u tse t. T hat$300 cas h payment , i n l i eu of a promi s e t o pay, s at i s f i ed the cos t - bond r equi r ementof M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 23- 15- 927 in i t s ent i r ety. A s s uch, w e r ever s e and
r emand t o t he ci r cui tcourtf orf ur therpr ocee di ngs i n acc or d w i th thi s opi ni on. ¶9. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , EAS LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NSON AND LAM AR, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH O UT S EPARATE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . S M I T H, C. J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .