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 4 - CA- 0 0 0 7 8 - S CT J UL I E R OS S ON

v. DR . M AR K Mc FA RLAN

D D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 30/ 2003 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S T E P HE N B
. S I M P S ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HAN COCK COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: J OE SA M OW EN S AM S T ARNE S T HOMAS A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L E E : S
. C H R IS T O P H E R F A R R IS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI TI O N : O N BO TH D I RE CT A PPEA L A N D CR O SSA PPE A L : D I SM I SSE D - 05/ 18/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

STA TE M EN T O F T H E C A SE ¶ 1
. O n Ju ly1 2 , 1 9 9 9, D r. M a rk M c F a rla n d (“ M c F a rla n d ” ) f iled a C o m p lain t in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f H a n c o c k C o u n tya g a in st A c a d ian B a y D e v e lo p m e n t, In c . (“A c a d ian B a y ” ) a n d Ju lie R o ss o n , ind iv id u a ll y (“ R o s s o n ” ) . M c F a r la n d p le a d e d A c a d ian B a ya n dR o ss o n b re a c h e dth e ir contr actual obl i gat i ons and negl i gent l yfai l ed t o cons truct hi s hom e i n a fi tand w orkm anl i ke

m anner . M cFar l and furtheral l eged A cadi an B ayand R os s on ma d e f a l s e s t at ement s t o i nduce M cFar l and t o ent eri nt o the contr actt o bui l d hi s hom e.I n hi s M ot i on t o A m end C om pl ai nt , M cFar l and di d not s eek t o di s m i s s T i m e W arner 1 as a def endant
. H ow ever , T i m e W arnerw as notnamed as a def endanto n the Second A m e n d e d C o m p la in t a n d d o e s n o t a p p e a r f u rt h e r i n th e s e p ro c e e d in g s . 2 ¶ 2
. M c Fa r l a n d r e c e i v e d th e p l a n s f o r b u i l d i n g h i s hom e t hr ough Sout her n L i vi ng
m ag az ine. O n D ec em b er 8 , 2 0 0 0 , an A m en d ed C o m p lai n t w as fil ed ad d ing T im e W arn er, Inc
. , w h ich w as a ll eg ed to b e the p are n t com p an yo f S o u thern L iving , Inc
. (“S o u thern L iving ”). O n O ctob er 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , a se co n d A m en d ed C o m p lai n t w as f il ed n am ing S o u thern L i vi ng and J ul i e R os s on B ui l der , I nc. , in addi t i on t o defe ndant s A cadi an B ayand R os s on, i nd ividu all y . M cFar l and cl ai m ed the named defe ndant s w er e gui l tyof negl i gence i n the

1

om i s s i on of m at er i al fac t s and mat t er s , br eac h of contr actand fr aud. ¶3
. A tr ial w as co n d u cted in th e C ir cu itC o u rto f H an co ck C o u n ty
. D u ri n g tr ial , S o u thern L i vi ng s ett l ed for$100, 000. A tthe end of M cFar l and’ s case - i n- chi ef, the r emai ni ng thr ee defe nd ants m ov ed fo r a di rect ed v erdi ct , w hich w as den i ed by the tr i al j ud ge. A tthe close of the ca s e, the def

endant s ’ r enew ed mot i on fordi r ect ed ver di ctw as deni ed. ¶4. O n Sept ember 27, 2003, the j ury r eturned a ver di ct agai ns t R os s on, i ndi vi dual l y , for $ 3 2 5 ,0 0 0 . R o ss o n w a s g iv e n c re d it f o r th e S o u th e rn L iv in g se ttl e m e n t am o u n t b ya g re e m e n t. O n Sept ember30, 2003, a j udgm entw as ent er ed aga i ns tR os s on, i ndi vi dual l y , for$225, 000. ¶5. T he O rde r sty led F inal Ju d g m en t, h o w ever , nei therr efe r ence d the r emai ni ng defe ndant s , A cadi an B ayand J ul i e R os s on B ui l der , I nc. , nor w as the j udgm entent er ed bythe tr ia l c o u rtc e rt if

ie d a s f in a l u n d e r M
. R .C .P . 5 4 (b ). See M .W .F . v. D .D .F

., ( No. 2 0 0 3
- CT0 2 6 4 2 -S C T , d e c id e d A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 ; m a n d a te is su e d M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 6 ); S a lt s v. G u lf N a t’l L if eSubse quent t o or al ar gum ent , R os s on fi l ed a Pet i t i on t o Suppl ementthe R ecor d, and 2 a R es pons e w as fi l ed byM cFar l and. 3 I n s . Co ., 8 4 9 S o .2 d 8 4 8 , 8 5 0 -5 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ); G ilc h r is t v. V e a c h , 754 So. 2d 1172, 1173- 74 (M i ss. 20 00 ); O w e n s v . N a s c o I n t’l, I n c ., 7 4 4 S o .2 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); W il liam s v. D e lta R e

g ’l Me d . Ctr., 740 So. 2d 284, 285 ( M i s s . 1999)
. O nl yR os s on appea l ed, and M c F a rla n d c ro ss -a p p e a led o n lya s to R o ss o n . T h is a n o m a lyw a s n o t d isc o v e re d u n til th is 2 C our t , i n s eeki ng j us tr es ol ut i on and pr operdi s pos i t i on of al l i s s ues appea l ed, r eal i zed that i n the abse nce of al l part i es , i t coul d not adj udi cat e al l cl ai m s or the ri ght s and l i abi l i t i es of al l part i es t o thes e pr ocee di ngs . A ccor di ngl ythi s C our t , s ua s pont e, fi nds i tl acks j ur i s di ct i on. ¶6
. “T h is C o u rt ’s j u ri sd ict ion is ex p ressly set fo rth in [ M iss. C o d e A n n . ] S ec ti o n 1 1 -51 -3

as pr operonl y fr om a ‘f i nal j udgm ent
. ’ A s not ed i n B r a dle y v. Ho lm e s, 242 M i s s . 247, 134 S o. 2d 49 4 (196 1), an appea l i s no t a m at t er of r i gh t bu t i s subject t o the st atutoryprovis i on s,
a n d th e b a s ic re q u ir e m e n t is th a t a p p e a ls a re p ro p e r o n ly if f ro m a f in a l ju d g m e n t. See a l

so P e rk in s v. T

h o mp s o n , 127 M i s s . 864, 90 So. 710 ( 1922)
. ” B a n ks v. City Fin . Co ., 825 So. 2d 6 4 2 , 6 4 4 -4 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ). CO NC L US I ON ¶ 7
. T h e a p p e a l, c ro s s -a p p e a l a n d p e titio n a re d is m is s e d f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n . ¶ 8
. ON BOT H DI RE CT AP P EA L A ND CROS S - AP P EA L: DI S M I S S ED . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R A N D C O B B , P . J J . , C A R L S O N A N D D IC K I N S O N , J J ., CO NC U R . GR AVES, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I THO UT S EPARATE4

W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. EA S LE Y, J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I T HOU T S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI AZ , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .