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 1 5 1 0 - S CT CARROL L GRAV

ESAND CATHY GRAVES v. DUD LEY

M APL ES , L. P. , AND H

ANCOCK BANK, T R U S T EE, F O R T

H E A . F . DA N T Z L ER , J R ., TR U ST D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 24/ 2004 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. SAN FORD R. STECKLER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GEORGE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT S : J AM E S H. HE RR I NG A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EES: M A RK A N TH O N Y M A PLES W . LEE W ATT J OS E P H ANT HONY S HE RMAN NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 08/ 2007 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 W A L L E R , P . J. , D I A Z A N D C A R L SO N , JJ. DI AZ , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s cas e conc erns w hethera pr es cr i pt i ve ea s ementexi s t s overa pi ece of pr oper ty. F act s and C ours e of

P roce edi ngs Bel owN ei therparty pr ovi ded a c onci s e summ at i on of the f act s i n thi s cas e, onl y r eci t i ng at 1 g rea t l en g th th e co u rse o f p roc ee d ing s in the tr ial c o u rta n d e v en ts at tr ial . T h is i s co n tr ary to o u r R u le s o f A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re a n d is d is fa v o re d . See M .R .A .P . 2 8 (a )(4 ) (p a rties sh o u ld p ro v id e a “ sta tem e n t o f fa c ts re lev a n t to th e iss u e s p re se n ted fo r re v iew , w ith a p p ro p ria te re fe re n c e s to th e re c o rd ” ). 

### 2 ¶2. T he fact s givin g rise to this ca se are n o t i n d i spute. D ud l ey M aples , L . P . i s a 1 c o rp o ra tio n th a t o w n s p ro p e rty in G e o rg e C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. S a rd -M a g R o a d is th e o n ly w ay one c an r eac h the l and- l ocked pr operty. Roughl y every thr ee mont hs , D udl ey M apl es oranotherdes i gnee of

D udl ey M apl es , L . P. , t akes thatr oad t o vi s i thi s pr operty. M apl es i ns pect s the t i m bergr ow i ng on t he pr operty f orgr ow th patt erns , f

i r e pr event i on, and i ns ect in fe sta tio n , an d p e rfo rm s o th e r ta sk s n e c e ss a ry to p ro p e rty m a n a g e m e n t. I n a d d iti o n to sel l i ng t i m ber f

rom the prope rty, M aples al so draw s i nco m e by l easi ng the land t o h un t ers . T he hunt er s al s o use Sar d- M ag R oad t o acce s s t he pr operty. A ccor di ng t o M apl es , the r oad has been i n us e by i ndi vi dual s w ho ow ned pr operty al ong i t s bor der s f ornear l y a ce ntur y. ¶3. M apl es w as conce r ned aboutan att ack on the t i m berby t he bl ackhe aded pi ne s aw f l y, a n in se c t w h ich c o n su m e s th e fo liag e o f p in e tre e s. D e fo lia tio n c a n c a u se a c o n sid e ra b le reduct i on i n the abi l i ty o f the tr ee t o grow , and m ay als o subj ecti tt o att ack fr om otherpest s, su c h as b a rk b e e tles . T h is lo ss o f g ro w th ca n ca u se a lo ss o f v a lu e an d d e la y th e h a rv e st. M apl es had bee n advi s ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi St at e Ext ens i on Ser vi ce t o i ns pectthe t r ees re g u la rl y .

### 3

¶4. O n M ar ch 29, 2002, Car r ol l G r aves pur chas ed pr operty s urr oundi ng Sar d- M ag R oad. T hi s l and i s s i tuat ed betw een the mai n r oad, H i ghw ay 26, and M apl es ’ pr operty. N otl ong aft er hi s purchase, G raves bl ock ed the r oad w i th a p i l e of deb ri s. ¶ 5 . M a p le s fi le d a c o m p la in t o n O c to b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 2 , fo r a te m p o ra ry re s tr a in in g o rd e r, a pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on, a nd a pe r m anenti nj unct i on barr i ng G r aves f r om bl ocki ng the r oad. H i s othergoal w as t o per s uade the t r i al cour tt o form al l y decl ar e t hata pr es cr i pt i ve ea s ement wa s e s t a b l i s h e d f

o rth e p o r t i o n o f

S a r d - M a g Ro a d t h a tr u n s a c r o s s Gr a v e s ’ p r o p e r ty . On N ovember13, 2002, the G eor ge C ounty C hance ry C our tgra nt ed a TR O compel l i ng G r aves to re o p e n a c c e ss to S a rd -M a g R o a d to M a p les “ a n d h is d e sig n e e s u n til th e fin a l o rd e r o f th is c o u rt is e n te re d a n d th e is s u e s a re fu lly re s o lv e d b y th e h e a ri n g .” ¶6 . A f

t e rr e c e i vi ng t he T RO f r om t he t r i a l co urt , M a pl e s s e nta co py of t he orde r and a l ett ert o G r aves , not i f

yi ng hi m thatM apl es ora des i gnat ed l i s tof a gent s w oul d r es um e us i ng the Sar d- M ag R oad t o i ns pecthi s pr operty. A f t err ece i vi ng no r es pons e, M apl es s entG r aves anotherl ett erand copy of the TR O . M aples then s entagent s acr os s t o r eac h hi s l and, but th e y w e re th w a rte d b y G ra v e s a n d h is w if e , w h o w e re a c c o m p a n ied b y a G e o rg e C o u n ty cons t abl e. D es pi t e the pr es ence of a courtor deral l ow i ng them t o us e the r oad t o r eac h t he lan d lo c k e d p ro p e rty , the d e sig n e e s o f M a p les w e re th re a ten e d w ith a rre st b y th e c o n sta b le i f they cont i nued dow n the r oad. A f t erw ar ds, M apl es l earned thatG r aves had er ect ed a barbed w i r e f

ence acr os s the r oad. ¶7. M apl es then m oved f ors anct i ons a nd a t t orneys ’ f ees because of G raves’ fl agra nt v io latio n o f th e o rd e r o f th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt. A t th e d ire c tio n o f th e trial c o u rt, o th e r p ro p e rty

### On ce reachin g G raves’ p rop erty, S ard-M ag R oadb ranch es o ff into three directio ns. 2 

### 4 ow ner s af

f ect ed by the bl ocked r oad w er e not i f i ed. T he A . F. D ant zl er , Jr . T rus ti nt ervened th ro u g h its re p re se n tativ e H a n c o c k B a n k . T h e D a n tzle r T ru st o w n s p ro p e rty d ire c tly e a st, w es t , and s outh of

the G r aves ’ pr operty, al l of w hi ch w as m ade i nacc es s i bl e by G raves’ act i on s. ¶8. T o avoi d s anct i ons f orhi s bl at antdi s r egar d of the or der , G r aves ent er ed i nt o a cons ent o rd e r w ith M a p les a n d D a n tzle r. T h e o rd e r n o ted th a t G ra v e s w a s o rd e re d , an d a g re e d , to r emove t he debr i s pi l e and f ence bl ocki ng Sar d- M ag R oad, and w oul d r ees t abl i s h the r oad. H e a g re e d “ n o t to in te rf

e re in a n y r e s p e c t w h a ts o e v e r w ith P la in tif fs ’ u s e o f t h e irp ro p e rt ie s .” T he or deral l ow ed any “ empl oyees , a gent s a nd a s s i gns ” of M apl es a nd D ant zl ert o us e the r oad. Fi nal l y, G r aves agr eed that“s houl d he notcompl y w i th t hi s orde r , ” thatM apl es and the D an tzl er c o u ld b e g ran ted a tt o rne y s’ fees a n d co sts f o r an y effo rtm ad e to e n su re compl i ance w i th the cons entor der . T he agr eementw as s i gned by att orneys f oral l t hr ee part i es on J anuary 3, 2003. ¶ 9 . H o w e v e r, e v e n a ft e r h e a g re e d to a b id e b y th e o rd e r, G ra v e s re fu se d to h o n o r its t erm s. H e op ened gap s i n the barbed w i re fences, but onl y o n the northern an d w est ern si des. T he ea s t ern and s outhern s i des r emai ned f ence d, w hi ch s t i l l bl ocked M apl es and D ant zl er f r om i ns pect i ng thei rpr operty. G r aves a l s o f ol l ow ed des i gnees of

M apl es and D ant zl eron 2 h is fo u r-w h e e ler , an d o n o n e o c c a sio n th re a ten e d a d e sig n e e tra v e lin g o n th e ro a d n o t to r eturn t o the pr operty. A tr oughl y the s ame t i m e, D ant zl erdi s cover ed thatboa tr amps hadA l though G r aves r epea t edl y obj ect s i n hi s br i ef s t o Sar d- M ag R oad bei ng decl ar ed 3 o p e n to the p u b li c, no su ch o rde r w as issu ed b y the tri al co u rt . Ind ee d , the c h an ce ry c o u rt 

### 5 been c uti nt o por t i ons of i t s pr operty thatbor der ed B l ack Cre ek, and s us pect ed G r aves pl ayed a r ol e i n t he des truct i on of the cr eek banks . G r aves l at eradmi t t ed attr i al thathe had i ndeed cut the creek b ank s. ¶10. M apl es and D ant zl ert hen pet i t i oned the tr i al courtf ora mandat ory i nj unct i on f or ci ng G ra v e s to c o m p ly w ith th e ter m s o f th e a g re e d o rd e r, a c itatio n o f c o n tem p t fo r fa ilu re to compl y, and att orneys ’ f ees f orhavi ng t o br i ng furtherl egal act i on. Y etanotheror derw as ent er ed by the t r i al cour t , agai n si gned by at t orneys foral l par t i es , af f i r m i ng al l t he t erm s of the pr evi ous or derand mandat i ng a r epai rof the cr eek ba nks . T he on l y ques t i on r es erved w a s th e re q u e st fo r a tto rn e y s’ f e e s, w h ich w a s to b e d e ter m in e d a t trial. ¶11. T he tr i al w as hel d over f i ve days i n l at e 2003. B eca us e G r aves admi t t ed at tr i al t hat he knew M apl es and D ant zl erhad a ri ghtt o us e the r oad, the tr i al courtf ound thatthe nee d fo r “ lit ig a tio n a n d th e n u m e ro u s o rd e rs a n d m e th o d s o f p ro c e d u re tak e n th ro u g h o u t [th is cas e] w er e, i n f

act , f r i vol ous i n na tur e. ” G r aves r epea t edl y admi t t ed thathe knew the r oad w as open t o al l and t hathe had per s onal l y pi l ed t he debr i s , bui l tt he barbed w i r e f ence , and cutthe cr eek ba nks on B l ack Cre ek. ¶12 . T he tr i al cou rtult i m at el y foun d thata prescr ipti v e ea sem en t ex i st ed o ver G raves’ pr operty due t o i t s us e as an ac ces s r oad t o B l ack Cre ek and a s a l oggi ng road si nce the 1 9 3 0 ' s. U se of the road w as al l ow ed in f avo r of M aples , D antzl er, and theirdesi gn ees, i nvi t ees , and as s i gns . G r aves w as pe r m anent l y e nj oi ned f r om i nt er f

er i ng w i th the us e of

t he 3expl i ci t l y no t ed t hat“the C our tw i l l r ef r ai n f r om decl ar i ng the r oad a publ i c r oad” a nd narr ow ed t ho se w ho m i gh tuse i tt o M aples , D antzl er, and t heirdesi gn ees. T he t ri al co u rt di d not e thatm ember s of the ge ner al publ i c coul d pos s i bl y us e the r oad “t o the ext entt hat th e P la in tif

fs h a v e s h o w n th e g e n e ra l p u b lic to b e a d e fa c to in v ite e o f D a n tz le r a n d M a p le s ,” as ther e w as evi dence of peopl e us i ng the r oad t o acc es s B l ack Cre ek f orf i s hi ng and s w im m in g . 

### 6 r oad by thos e per s ons . G r aves w as or der ed t o r epai rthe cr eek ba nks he damaged and t o pay $3, 200 t o D ant zl era nd $2, 500 t o M apl es t o pa y thei ra t t orneys ’ f ees i ncurr ed i n br i ngi ng t he a c tio n . ¶ 1 3 . G ra v e s d id n o t pe tit io n the co u rt fo r rec o n sid e ra tio n o f th is ju d g m e n t or a n e w trial, buti ns t ead appeal ed di r ect l y t o thi s C our t . H e ar gues thr ee s epar at e err or s w er e comm i t t ed b y th e tr ia l c o u rt . St andard of R evi ew ¶1 4 . O n rev iew , w e g en era ll y d efe r to a ch an ce ry co u rt ’s fi n d ing s o f fact un less they are m a n if e s tl y w ro n g o r c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s . Saliba v. Saliba , 75 3 S o. 2d 10 95 , 10 98 (M i ss. 2000) . W e us e a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew w hen exa m i ni ng ques t i ons of l aw deci ded by a c h a n c e ry c o u rt . I

d . I . W as the t r i alc our t ' s f i ndi ng o f

a pr e s c r i pt i ve e as e m e nt ag ai ns t t he w ei ght of

t he evi dence? ¶15 . G raves argues thatthe f i nd i ng of a prescr i pti ve easem ent acr oss theirl and w as against the w ei ghtof

the evi dence . I n r es pons e, M apl es of f er s t hatt hi s i s s ue w as neverr ai s ed i n a m o tio n to re c o n sid e r a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt. W e h a v e “ re p e a ted ly h e ld tha t a trial ju d g e w ill notbe f ou nd i n e r r oron a mat t e rno tpr e s e nt e d t o the tr i a l c ou r tf ora de c i s i on. ” P urv is v.

### 7

B ar nes , 791 So. 2d 199, 203 ( M i s s . 2001) . “[ T ] her e ar e cert ai n er r or s thatpart i es m us tbr i ng t o the att ent i on of

the tr i al j udge i n a m ot i on fora new tr i al , ” orthey w i l l notbe cons i der ed o n a p p e lla te re v ie w . McL e m o re v. S ta te , 6 6 9 S o . 2 d 1 9 , 2 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ). “T h e se in c lu d e a ll new m att er s , m ot i ons m ade upon t he gr ound of i nadequa t e orexces s i ve damages , m ot i ons m ade f ornew tr i al w her e i ti s cont ended thatt he ver di cti s agai ns tt he overw hel m i ng w ei ght of the evi dence , and the deni al of a cont i nuance . ” I

d. ; s ee ge ner al l

y T . Jackson L yo ns, “Pr es ervat i on of

C l ai m s and E r r or , ” E ncy. of M i s s . L aw A pp. P r ac. & Pr oc. § 11 ( J . J acks on & M . M ille r e d s . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶16. T he pr operm ethod t o addr es s any concerns aboutevi dence w oul d have be en thr ough a mot i on f

ora new t r i al purs uantt o M . R . C . P. 59, w hi ch pr ovi des t hata cha ncel l ororot her tr i al cour ts i t t i ng w i thouta j ury “may open the j udgm enti f one has be en ent er ed, t ake addi t i onal t es t i m ony, amend f i ndi ngs of

f acta nd c oncl us i ons of

l aw ormake new f

i ndi ngs and conc l us i ons , and di r ectthe entr y of a new j udgm ent . ” See al s o P u rv is , 791 So. 2d at203 ( “Logi cal l y, the onl y w ay t o pre s entan er r orre gar di ng a ques t i on s uch as thi s w oul d be by w ay o f a m o ti o n for a n ew tr ial ”). ¶17. M or eover , the r ecor d i s repl et e w i t h t he t es t i m ony of m or e than a dozen w i tnes s es w ho t es t i f

i ed t o t he hi s t or i cal use of t he r oad by t he publ i c and a dj ace ntl andow ner s . Sar dM ag R oad had be en us ed f ordeca des by mem ber s of the comm uni ty t o a cce s s Bl ack Cre ek and f orpr operty ow ner s t o acc es s thei rt i m ber . G r aves hi m s el f re peat edl y agr eed thati tw as notr eas onabl e t o bl ock ac ces s t o the r oad; thatM apl e and D ant zl ers houl d have a cce s s t o the ro a d ; th a t h is b lo c k in g th e ro a d h a d n o th in g to d o w ith M a p le o r D a n tzle r, b u t in ste a d h is

### 8

per s onal pr obl ems w i th tw o l ocal i ndi vi dual s ; and thathe agr eed e verybody us ed the r oads and nev er needed to ask perm i ssi on ; an d that he him sel f had nev er asked perm i ssi on to use i ti n t he dec a de s be f

or e he a c qu i r e d the l a nd . Suc h a mpl e t e s t i mony, i nc l ud i ng r e pe a t ed admi s s i ons by G r aves , ar e w hy t he t r i al cour tdeem ed t he r oad t o be subj ectt o a pr es cr i pt i ve eas ement . A ddi t i onal l y, the cha i n of t i t l e l eadi ng t o G r aves ’ pur chas e i n 2002 i ndi cat es e x c e p tio n s to th e title fo r “ u n re c o rd e d e a s e m e n ts a n d ri g h ts -o f- w a y fo r e x is tin g ro a d s (p u b lic orpr i vat e) . ” The t r i al courtcomm i t t ed no err ori n i t s f i ndi ng. ¶18. T he tr i al courtal s o f ound thatG r aves s houl d have t o pay t he att orneys ’ f ees of M apl es and D a nt z l e r . I n hi s b r i e f , Gr a ve s a r gu e s wi tho utc i t a t i on tha t“ [ t ] he r e s ho ul d be no re q u ire m e n t fo r d e fe n d a n ts to p a y a n y m o n e y to th e p lain tiffs fo r leg iti m a tely atte m p tin g to p rotec t th eir pro p erty righ ts. ” It i s lon g -sett led th at fa il u re to c it e a n y au tho ri ty in su p p o rt o f c la im s o f e rr o r p re c lu d e s t h is C o u rt fr o m c o n s id e ri n g th e s p e c if ic c la im o n a p p e a l. See G r ey v. G r ey , 6 3 8 S o . 2 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ). A d d iti o n a lly , this a rg u m e n t is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d a s it w a s n o t r a is e d in a m o tio n t o re c o n s id e r o r m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. See McL em ore , 669 So. 2d at24 ( bef or e appe l l at e courtcan r evi ew “m oti on s made upon t he g rou n d o f i n ad eq u ate o r ex ce ssive d am ag es” they m u st be p rese n ted to the tri al co u rt ). ¶19 . T he record is clearthatG raves repeat edly i gn ored t he o rder s of the tr i al cou rtt o cease bl ocki ng the r oad and de pr i vi ng M apl es and D ant zl erof acc es s . A tone poi nt , G r aves w ent s o f aras t o thr eat en des i gnees of M aple s w i th arr es t , even though they w er e i n pos s es s i on of a law ful courtor dergr ant i ng them acces s t o the r oad. G r aves al s o agr eed i n the f i r st cons entor derthathe w oul d pa y the cos t s of any att orneys ’ f

ees i f di s obeyed the or der . T hat

### 9

bl at antdi s r egar d f

ort he or der s of the cour t , coupl ed w i th hi s r epea t ed admi s s i ons attr i al by w h ich h e a c tu a lly a g re e d th a t b lo c k in g th e ro a d w a s w ro n g , tha t M a p les a n d D a n tzle r sh o u ld h av e a cc ess to th e roa d , an d th at th e roa d for de ca d es h ad be en use d b y the c o m m u n ity , are r eas ons w hy the cha ncery courtdeemed an aw ar d of att orneys ’ f

ees t o be w arr ant ed. They are also the rea so n s w h y the c h an ce ll o r ca tego ri ze d the a cti o n as “ fri v o lou s. ” T h e tri al co u rt com m i t t ed n o err or i n assess i ng G raves these co st s. I I . W as t here “m i s j oi nder or nonj oi nder of part i es ” bec au se D u d l ey M a p les w a s n o t jo in e d a s a n in d iv id u a l? ¶20. G r aves ar gues that the tr i al court s houl d be r ever s ed beca us e D udl ey M apl es w as not j oi ned i n the ac t i on as an i ndi vi dual , and he c i t es no cas es i n s upportof the ar gum entt hat m i s j oi nderornonj oi nderw arr ant ed r ever s al . A s not ed supra , failu re to c ite a n y a u th o rity in su p p o rt o f c laim s o f e rro r p re c lu d e s th is C o u rt fro m c o n sid e rin g th e sp e c ific c laim o n a p p e a l. See G r ey , 638 So. 2d at491. T hi s ar gum entthatM aples s houl d have be en j oi ned i n the a c tio n a s a n in d iv id u a l w a s n e v e r r a ise d a t tria l o r in a n y p o st-tria l m o tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , it is b a rr e d . See McL em ore , 66 9 S o. 2d at(bef ore app el l at e cou rtcan review “al l new m at t ers ” m us tbe f i r s tpr es ent ed t o the tr i al court ) . T hi s deci s i on i s notm ade c apr i ci ous l y, butunder “the or di nar i l y s ound pr i nci pl e thatthi s C ou r ts i t s t o r evi ew act i ons of tr i al court s and that w e s houl d undert ake c ons i der at i on of no m att erw hi ch has notf i r s tbeen pr es ent ed t o and deci ded by the tr i al court . ” P u rv is , 7 9 1 S o . 2 d a t 2 0 3 . ¶21. G r aves s tr ai ns m i ght i l y agai ns t thes e m ul t i pl e pr ocedur al bar s , and w hi l e s t i l l f ai l i ng t o pr ovi de ci t at i on t o cas es r egar di ng j oi nderorthe nee d f ornece s s ary part i es , as s ert s t hat

### 10

ther e may be a probl em w i th subj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. Subj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on m ay be ra is e d a t a n y ti m e , e v e n fo r t h e fi rs t tim e o n a p p e a l. See M .R .A .P . 1 2 (h )(3 ) (“ W h e n e v e r it appea r s by sugges t i on of the part i es orotherw i s e thatthe courtl acks j ur i s di ct i on of the s ubj ectm att er , the cour tshal l di s m i s s t he act i on or tr ans f ert he act i on t o the courtof pr oper ju ri s d ictio n ” ); C om m ent , M . R . A . P. 12 ( “U nderR ul e 12( h) ( 3) a ques t i on of s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on m ay be pr es ent ed atany t i m e . . . [ and] m ay be pr es ent ed f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p ea l”). ¶22. H ow ever , no j us t i f i abl e bas i s exi s t s f

ora r gui ng thata cha ncery courtdoes nothave j ur i s di ct i on overm att er s i nvol vi ng pr operty. Such author i ty i s conf err ed by ourcons t i tut i on, h is to ry , a n d p re c e d e n t. See M iss . C o n st. a rt. 6 , § 1 6 0 . N o r d id G ra v e s o ffe r a n y c a se s in w hi c h a c ha nc e r y c ou r tl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on t o a dd r e s s a n e a s e mentby pr e s c r i pt i on. A ddi t i onal l y, even i f

j ur i s di ct i on i s pr obl emat i c, “once a cha ncery courtm akes a f i nal j udgm enton the m er i t s of the ca s e, thi s C our tm ay notr ever s e thatf i ndi ng w i thoutf

i ndi ng an erro r i n addi t i on t o l ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. ” U . S. Fidelit

y & G uar. Co. v. E sta te o f Fra n c is e

x re l. Fra n c is , 82 5 S o. 2d 38 , 47 (M i ss. 20 02 ) ( em ph asi s added ); M i ss. C o n s t. a rt . 6 , § 1 4 7 . T h u s th is a rg u m e n t f a ils fo r a v a ri e ty o f r e a s o n s . I I I . W as i t err or f

or t he t ri al court t o al l ow D arw i n M apl es t o t es t i f y? ¶23. T hi s i s the one a r gum entby G r aves w hi ch i s notpr ocedur al l y barr ed, as the obj ect i on m a d e a t t ri a l p re s e rv e d it f o r o u r re v ie w . See McL em ore , 669 So. 2d at24 ( “H avi ng m ade a n o b jec tio n a t trial, the o b

jec tio n w a s p re se rv e d fo r a p p e llate p u rp o se s d e sp ite its fa ilu re to

### 11

appea ri n the appel l ant ’ s m ot i on fora new t r i al ”) . G r aves ar gues thati tw as r ever s i bl e err or to a llo w D a rw in M a p le s , th e b ro th e r a n d a tto rn e y o f D u d le y , to te s tif y a t tr ia l. ¶24 . T he landm ark M i ssi ssi pp i case on this subjecti s P it tm a n v . C u rr ie , i n wh i c h we e x a m in e d th e g e n e ra l u n d e sira b ili ty o f a tto rn e y s tes tify in g in c a se s w h e re in th e y a re c o u n se l, a p rac ti ce w h ich w e h av e said sh o u ld b e a v o ided if p o ssible. 41 4 S o . 2 d 4 2 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ); s ee M iss. R . P rof ’l C o n d u ct 3.7. W e e x p li cit ly n o ted th at “p erm itti n g [an a tt o rne y ’s t es t i m ony attr i al i s nota gr ound f orr ever s al . ” I

d. a t 4 2 7 . W e fu rth e r e x p o u n d e d th a t the r at i onal e of

the rul e r es t s on the pr em i se t hatther e exi s t s a conf l i ctof interestw hen an ad vo cat e i s asked t o b e a w i tness. T he rul e dis qu al i fi es a l aw yer w here t here i s a li keli ho od thatthe l aw yer w i l l b e a n ecessary w i tness. T hi s rul e then i s nota n i m m uni ty f r om t es t i f

yi ng by the advoca t e w i tnes s , but i ti s a l i m i t at i on on advoca cy. Pea rs on v. Pars ons , 541 So. 2d 447, 452 ( M i s s . 1989) . A l l ow i ng an at t orne y t o t es t i f y as a w itn e ss m a y re su lt i n h is o r h e r d isq u a lifica tio n a s a n a d v o c a te, b u t n o t as a w itn e ss w ith re le v a n t te s tim o n y . I

d . at 45 2 (“w ith d raw al from rep rese n tat ion o f bo th co u n sel w h o w ere to b e w itn e ss e s o n co n tes ted issu e s w a s re q u ire d ” ); s ee al s o W e st v . S ta te , 519 So. 2d 418, 4 2 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ) (“ T h e c o u rt m a y a d m o n ish a n a tto rn e y w h e n it ap p e a rs th a t h e k n e w in advanc e thathe w oul d be ca l l ed upon t o t es t i f y i n a cas e, f

ort aki ng act i ve parti n the tr i al of a c a se , b u t th e c o u rt c a n n o t re fu se a n a c c u se d th e rig h t to in tro d u c e c o m p e ten t ev id e n c e in h is fa v o r b e c a u s e it m a y a p p e a r t h a t a n a tto rn e y h a s v io la te d a n e th ic a l ru le ” ). ¶2 5. I n s pi t e o f

o urc l e a rp r e c e de ntp r oh i bi t i ng r e ve r s a l i n the s e typ e s of cas es , G r aves u rg e s re v e rsa l is w a rra n ted b e c a u se D a rw in M a p les w a s a llo w e d to tes tify . T h e re c o rd is cl earthatD arw i n M apl es i m m edi at el y cea s ed hi s a dvocac y on behal f of hi s br otherw hen he

### 12

w as br oughti n t o t es t i f

y. Fur ther , G r aves om i t s an i m por t antfa ct . In Pitt m an and P ears on , the at t orney- w i tnes s es soughtt o t es t i f y f orthei rcl i ent s . I n the ca s e athand, D arw i n M apl es tes tified n o t fo r h is b ro th e r a n d c lien t, bu t fo r th e D a n tzle r T ru st. M r. W a tt [ attorney for the D an t zl er Trust ] : S o tha t th e re co rd is am p ly clea r, the pl a i nt i f

f c a l l i ng thi s w i tne s s t o t e s t i f y [ i s ] Hanc oc k Bank , trus t e e f orA . F. D a n tzle r, Jr. T ru st.

. . . T hi s i s the o l destw i tnes s w ho has know l edge of the r oad . . . I have i nt ervi ew ed many, m any peopl e t o est abl i s h t he r el at i ons hi p w i th the D ant zl er f ami l y t o es t abl i s h the us e of the r oad, and the pr es cr i pt i ve eas ement , w hi ch has been cr eat ed ov er a tl eas t70 year s . A nd thi s w i tnes s goes f ur therback than anyone el s e. . . . I don’ tcar e w hetherany on e els e as ks hi m any other q u e stio n s, b u t th e D a n tzle r T ru st s h o u ld n o t b e p ro h ib ited fro m u sin g [h is test im o n y ] . . . . [H ] e is n o t cou n sel for D an tzl er. . . . T h is i s o u r prim ary wi tn e s s . W e h a v e two wi tn e s s e s . . . a n d th i s i s o n e o f th e m. I ti s cl earf

r om the r ecor d thatthe tr i al courtexpr es s l y exami ned the Pittm an case a nd gr appl ed w i th t he under l yi ng doctr i ne ( s t at i ng that“i ti s f r ow ned upon by the C our tt o have s om eone tr y t o s erve as both couns el and as a w i tnes s ”) , and al s o thatM apl es w as di s qual i f i ed as an att orney f

orhi s br other . T hi s i s i n a ccor dance w i th ourpr ece denta nd has n e v e r b e e n th e b a sis fo r a re v e rsa l. T h e ju d g e a c ted w ith in h is d isc re tio n in a llo w in g D a rw in M a p le s to te s tif

y . C oncl usi on ¶2 6 . F o r th e re aso n s ab o v e, w e affirm th e jud g m en t o f th e G eo rge C o u n ty C h an ce ry C o u rt thatM apl es and the D anzt l erT rus thave a pr es cr i pt i ve ea s ementoverthatpor t i on of Sar dM ag R oad cr os s i ng t he G r aves ’ l and, and af f i r m the j udgm entthat G raves m us tpay at t orneys’ f

ees f or al l part i es.

### 13

¶ 2 7 . AF F I RM ED . S M I T H, C. J . , W AL L E R, P . J . , E AS L E Y, CA RL S ON , GR AV E S , DI CK I NS ON AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , CO NC UR . CO B B , P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .