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 8 - CA- 0 1 2 9 8 - S CT CORPORAT

E M ANAGEM

ENT, I NC.
v. GR EEN E CO UN TY, M

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 01/ 2008 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. T. KENNET H GRI F F I S , J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GREE NE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : DAR RE N E
. GR AY J O H N R. RE EV ES J OHN J US T I N KI NG AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : CH RI S T OP HE R G AR RE T T HE NDE RS ON H E B E R S
. S IM M O N S , III NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 03/ 2009 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 , C . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h is is th e th ird a p p e a l in a c o n tr a c t d is p u te in v o lv in g th e m a n a g e m e n t o f a c o u n ty hos pi t al and nur s i ng f

aci l i ty by C orpor at e M anage m ent , I nc. ( C M I ) , a medi cal m anage m ent company, and G r eene C ount y, M i s s i s s i ppi , thr ough i t s B oar d of Super vi s or s ( G r eene C ounty)
. CM I a pp e a l s f r om a J ul y 1 , 20 08 , j ud gmen t , i n whi c h the s pe c i a l chanc el l or det erm i ned t hatG r eene C ount y had com pl i ed w i th the s t atut ory r equi r ement s nece s s ary f or off eri ng a l ease on a com m un i ty h ospit al , and that C M I w as i n co ntem pt, asses si ng at t orneys’ f ees i n the amountof

$7, 500. W e f

i nd thatthe s peci al chanc el l orc orr ect l y f ound thatG r eene

### 2

C ounty had compl i ed w i th the s t atut ory pr ovi s i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 13- 15 ( R ev. 2009). I n addi t i on, thi s C our taf f i r m s the s peci al chanc el l or ’ s f i ndi ng thatC M I w as i n cont empt and the as s es s m entof att orneys ’ f

ees i n the amountof

$7, 500. A ccor di ngl y, t he C our taf f i r m s the s peci al chanc el l or ’ s j udgm enti n t ot o. FACTS ¶2. T his case has a l on g hi s t ory of l i t i gat i on, r es ul t i ng i n thr ee appeal s . C M I and the tru s t e e s o f

th e Gr e e n e Ru r a l He a l th C e n t e r( “ GR HC tru s t e e s ” a n d “ GR HC ’ ) e n t e r e d i n t o t wo
c o n tra c ts fo r th e m a n a g e m e n t o f G re e n e C o u n ty ’s c o m m u n ity h o sp ital a n d n u rsin g h o m e in
ear l y 2005. T he l i t i gat i on i ni t i al l y s t emm ed f r om thes e contr act s betw een CM I and the trus t ees and conc erned w hetherthe contr act s w e r e bi nd i ng a nde nf or c e a bl e on G r e e ne County. ¶3
. A ft er en teri n g into the co n tr ac ts w ith C M I, the G R H C tru stees v o ted to ca n ce l C M I’s contr actw i thoutexpl anat i on, atan O ct ober15, 2005, m eet i ng. Subse quent l y, atthe O ct ober 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , GRHC tru s t e e me e t i n g , th e GRHC tru s t e e s v o t e d t o r e i n s t a t e CM I
. Th e r e a f t e r , CM I fi led a co m p lai n t seek ing an injun cti o n , d am ag es, an d o ther relief. ¶4. T hi s C our tappoi nt ed a spe ci al chance l l or t o t he cas e. T he spe ci al chance l l ori s s ued
a s econd a m ended f

i nal j udgm ent , f

i l ed on A pr i l 20, 2007, d et erm i ning thatthe hos pi t al agr eementand the nur s i ng hom e agr eement( her ei naf t er“the H os pi t al A gr eement ” and “ the N u rsin g H o m e A g re e m e n t”) b e tw e e n C M I an d the G R H C tru ste e s w e re v a lid a n d e n fo rc e a b le contr act s . T he s econd a m ended f i nal j udgm entenumer at ed pr ovi s i ons forvar i ous dut i es and
r es pons i bi l i t i es by t he part i es . W hi l e the s peci al c hance l l oror der ed thatthe s econd a m ended f i nal j udgm entbe a Rul e 54( b) f i nal j udgm ent , the tr i al courtret ai ned j ur i s di ct i on f ort he p u rp o s e o f e n fo rc e m e n t o f i ts ju d g m e n t. See M iss. R
. C iv. P. 54 (b).

### 3

¶5. T he spec i al chan cel l or al so rul ed o n G reene C ou n ty’s m o ti o n fo r cont em pt against C M I a nd the G R H C trus t ees f oral l egedl y i nt er f

er i ng w i th the s econd a m ended f i nal j udgm ent by ent er i ng i nt o an O ct ober2007 l eas e agr eement , a nd f orCM I ’ s a l l eged f

ai l ur e t o pr oduce d o c u me n t s i n c o mp l i a n c e wi th p r o v i s i o n s o f th e s e c o n d a me n d e d f i n a l j u d g me n t . On D ec em b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , the s p ec ial ch an ce ll o r de term ined that C M I an d the G R H C tru stees w ere i n cont empt fort he exec ut i on of the O ct ober15, 2007, l eas e contr actand agr eement , decl ar ed th e ag ree m en t n u ll an d vo id, an d ord ere d th e p arti es to ce ase an d de sistfr o m en ter in g in to
a d d iti o n a l c o n tra c ts. T h e sp e c ial c h a n c e llo r a lso o rd e re d C M I to p ro d u c e a ll d o c u m e n ts in compl i anc e w i th p a r a gr a ph s 11 ( 3)
- ( 4) , 13 , a nd 15 of the s e c on d a mend e d f i na l j ud gment
w i thin f i ve day s and r et ai ned j uri sdi ct i on t o d et erm i ne w hetherdam ages, cost s, or at t orneys’ fees w ere appropri at e aft er a r eview of the do cum ents . ¶6. C M I a nd G r eene C ounty appea l ed f r om the A pr i l 20, 2007, and D ece m ber 13, 2007,
rul i ngs . T hi s C our tconsol i dat ed t he t w o appea l s s tyl ed G r e e ne Count y, Mis s is s i

pp i , Jo hn Mars hall

E ubanks, T

om m y R obert

s and Mar i on P ier ce v. Cor por ate Managem ent

, I nc. , C aus e no. 2007- C A
- 0069 3- SC T , and Co rp o ra te Ma n ag e m e n t, In c . v. G re e n e Co u n ty , C ause No. 2 0 0 8
- CA
- 0 0 1 2 2
- SCT. ¶7. T he bas i s of

thi s thi r d appea l t o t he C ou rtis the special chanc el l or ’ s J ul y 1, 2008, ju d g m e n t en fo rc in g p ro v isio n s w ith in th e se c o n d a m e n d e d fin a l ju d g m e n t. P u rs u a n t to h is
r et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on and w hi l e the f i r s tand se cond appea l s w er e i n the appe l l at e pr oces s , t he
s peci al c hance l l ormade s ubs equentrul i ngs on the i s s ue of c om pl i ance w i th pr ovi s i ons of t he
s econd a m ended f

i nal j udgm ent , r es ul t i ng i n the J ul y 1, 2008, j ud gm ent. T he s peci al chan cel l or det erm i ned that (1) G reene C ou nty s ub st anti al l y had com pli ed w i th p aragr aph s 3

### Gr ee n e C o untydecid ed to lease the facilities, sent out Requests F or P rop osals 1 

### (RFPs ), re ce ive d se veralre spons es , and ac cepte d George Re giona l H e a lth S ys t e m’ s ( George Reg ion al) prop osal for lon g-term lease and manag ement of th e facilities. G r eene C ounty and G eor ge R egi onal ent er ed i nt o a s i gned l eas e agr eementon O ct ober22, 2007. T he l eas e w as t o go i nt o ef

f ecton J anuary 1, 2008, and the managementof the hos pi t al w as t o change f r om C M I t o G e o rg e R e g io n a l.

G r e e ne Count

y, Mis s is s i

pp i , Jo hn Mars hal

l Eubanks, Tom my Robe r t s and 2 Mar i on P ier ce v. Cor

por ate Managem ent

, I nc. , C a u s e N o . 

### 2007-CA- 00693-SCTand Co rp o ra te Ma n ag e m e n t, In c . v. G re e n e Co u n ty , Ca u s e No
. 2 0 0 8
- CA- 0 0 1 2 2
- S CT 

### . The Court

handed down itsdeci si on in the cons oli dat ed a ppea l on May 28, 2009. 3 

### The m andateis sue d on June18, 2009. 4 a n d 4 o f its s e c o n d a m e n d e d fin a l ju d g m e n t; (2 ) G re e n e C o u n ty h a d c o m p lied w ith M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 4 1-13- 15; and ( 3) C M I w as i n cont empt of par agr aphs 11( 3) and (4 ) o f th e se c o n d am e n d e d fin a l j u d g m e n t b y fa ili n g to p ro d u c e d o c u m e n ts to G re e n e C o u n ty and w as as s es s ed $7, 500 i n att orneys ’ f ees . C M I appea l ed f

r om thi s rul i ng. 1 ¶8. Shor t l y af

t er the part i es f

i ni s hed the br i ef

i ng per i od i n thi s thi r d appea l , caus e number 2008- C A
- 01298- SC T , thi s C our thanded d ow n i t s deci s i on on the tw o pendi ng and
con sol i dated app eal s. See G r eene Cou nt y v. Cor por ate Managem ent

, I nc. , 10 So. 3d 424 2 ( M i s s . 2009)
. I n G re e n e Co u n ty , t hi s C our tdet erm i ned t hatt he di s pos i t ve i s s ue w as w hether

3 the h o sp it al an d n u rsi n g h o m e a g ree m en ts en tered into b y C M I an d the G ree n e C o u n ty B o ard
o f T ru s te e s w e re b in d in g o n th e B o a rd o f S u p e rv is o rs a n d , th u s , G re e n e C o u n ty . Id
. at429- 3 0 . T h is C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e tria l co u rt e rre d b y fin d in g th a t th e tru ste e s h a d a u th o rity

### 5

to en ter i n to the ag ree m en ts, w h ich a li en ated rea l p rop erty, w ith o u t the a p p rov al of the B o ard
o f S u p e rv is o rs . Id
. a t431. T hus , the C our tvi ew ed the agr eement s as nonbi ndi ng, r ender i ng
a ll o th e r d is p o s itiv e is s u e s m o o t. Id . a t 4 3 3
. ¶9
. A d d iti o n a lly , this C o u rtad d resse d th e sp e c ial c h a n c e llo r’s ru lin g s o n c o n tem p t. G re e n e Co u n ty , 10 So. 3d at432. W hi l e the m ai n a r gum entc ent er ed on w hetherthe O ct ober 15, 2007, contr actbetw een CM I and t he G R H C trust ees i nt er f er ed w i th the t erm s of

the
s econd a m ended f

i nal j udgm ent , the opi ni on al s o not ed the s peci al chancel l or’ s deci s i on
re g a rd in g c o n te m p t f

o r t h e fa ilu re to p r o d u c e fi n a n c ia l s ta te m e n ts . Id
. atn. 13. U l t i m at el y, how ever , the C our tdet erm i ned that“[ b] eca us e w e f i nd t oday thatthe contr act s w er e not b in d in g , a n d b e c a u s e th e c o n te m p t o rd e r r e s u lte d in n o s a n c tio n s , w e fi n d th e is s u e m o o t.” Id
. ¶ 1 0
. It is fro m th is p ro c e d u ra l co n tex t th a t th is C o u rt n o w h a s th e th ird a p p e a l b e fo re it. DI S CU S S I ON ¶1 1
. T h is C o u rt h a s a lim ited s tan d a rd o f rev iew in ap p ea ls f rom the c h an ce ry c o u rt. Tu ckerv. P r is ock , 791 So
. 2d 19 0, 192 ( M i ss. 200 1). T he st and ard of rev iew for a
c h a n c e llo r's d e c is io n is a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Cre e l y v. Hos e m ann 91 0 S o. 2d 51 2, 51 6 (M i ss. 2005)
. A n appel l at e court“w i l l notdi s turb the f actual f i ndi ngs of

a cha ncel l orw hen
s upport ed by sub s t ant i al evi dence unl es s . . . the cha ncel l orabus ed hi s di s cr et i on, w as mani f e s t l y w r on g, c l e a r l y e r r on e ou s o ra pp l i e d a n e rr on e ou s l e ga l s t a ndar d. ” B i glane v. U nderT he H il l Cor p. , 949 So. 2d 9, 13
- 14 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng C um m ings v. B enderm an , 681 So. 2d 97, 100 ( M i s s . 1996) )
. H ow ever , on ques t i ons of l aw , appel l at e cour t s em pl oy a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . Id .; Tucker , 791 So. 2d at192.

### 6

1. Juri s di ct i on . ¶1 2. A s a si de ar gum ent , C M I gener al l y ra i s ed t he i s s ue tha tthe tr i a l c ou r t l acke d j ur i s di ct i on, si nce the par t i es had t w o appeal s pendi ng w i th t hi s C our tatt he t i m e t he s peci al
c h a n c e llo r e n ter e d th e 2 0 0 8 ju d g m e n t. C M I c o n ten d s th a t th e 2 0 0 8 ju d g m e n t er ro n e o u sly
m odi f i ed, al t er ed, amended, and br oadene d the s econd a m ended f i nal j udgm entw i thout ju risd ictio n . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶ 1 3
. F ili n g a n o tice o f a p p e a l tran sfe rs ju risd ictio n fro m th e trial c o u rt to an a p p e llate c o u rt, th e re b y re m o v in g th e tr ia l co u rt’s a u th o rity to a m e n d , m o d ify , o r re c o n sid e r its ju d g m e n t. McN eil v. Hes ter , 7 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 7 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); B ert A l len T oyo ta, Inc. v. G rasz , 947 So. 2d 358, 362- 63 ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2007)
. I n otherw or ds , the appea l r emoves the ca s e i pso fa c to t o th e a p p e lla te c o u rt s . Id
. W he n a n a pp e a l h a s n o s up e r s e de a s b on d, a p a r t y m ay
e x e c u te o n th e ju d g m e n t. McN e il , 753 So. 2d at1076. H ow ever , the l ow er courtcannot “br oaden, amend, m odi f y, vaca t e, cl ar i f

y, orr ehea rthe dec r ee. ” Id
. O n t he otherhand, w hen
a n a p p e a l h a s a s u p e rs e d e a s b o n d it e ff e c tiv e ly su s p e n d s th e ju d g m e n t. Matterof E s tate of Mor e land , 5 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 4 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ). T h e re fo re , “e n fo rc e m e n t o f th e rig h ts decl ar ed by t he decr ee ar e sus pended unt i l t he appea l i s det erm i ned. ” Id
. W h en a tr ial co u rt ’s
or derbr oadens , a m ends , m odi f i es , vaca t es , cl ar i f

i es , orr ehea r s a dec r ee, “i tm us tbe vac at ed
as nul l and voi d beca us e i texce eds the s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on of the l ow ercourt . ” Id
. ¶14. H er e, t he r ecor d r evea l s no s uper s edea s bond, nordoes CM I c l ai m thatone exi s t s . T he tr i al courtexpl i ci t l y r et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on i n the s econ d amended f i nal j udgm entand i n t he D ece m ber13, 2007, cont empt or derf orthe purpos e of

enf or ci ng i t s j udgm ent s . Fur ther , the
s peci al chanc el l or ’ s 2008 j udgm entm er el y enf or ced pr ovi s i ons of the s econd a m ended f i nal

### Th e orig inal ju dg ment h ad aninitialedcorrectio n ch ang ing th e due d ate from Ju ly 4 

### 15 to July 31, 2008. Thecor re ction wa s initia le d by thespe ci alchance ll or.

7 j udgm entand di d notbr oaden, amend, modi f y, va cat e, cl ar i f

y, orr ehea rthe s econd a m ended fin a l ju d g m e n t. In th e 2 0 0 8 jud g m e n t, th e tri a l co u rt d e ter m in e d “[t]ha t G re e n e C o u n ty tim e ly and subst ant i al l y compl i ed w i th the r equi r ement s of Par agr aphs 3 and 4 of the Second A m en d ed F inal Jud g m en t an d th e statutory requ ir em en ts o f M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -13 -15 (7), i n off er i ng t he G R H C fa ci l i ty forl eas e. ” O n the i s s ue of cont empt , the 2008 j udgm ents t at ed: T h a t C M I s h a ll b e a n d h e re b y is fo u n d to b e in c o n tem p t fo r its fa ilu re to com ply w i th p aragr aph s 11(3) of the C ou rt ’s F i nal Judg m ent, and that as a re su lt th e re o f G re e n e C o u n ty is e n tit led to a n a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’s f e e s a n d c o sts i n the amountof

$7, 500. 00. Sai d amount s hal l be pai d to G r eene C ounty, thr ough i t s att orney on orbef or e J ul y 31, 2008. 4 ¶15. T he r es tof

the 2008 j udgm entpr ovi des f orthe ac t i ons r equi r ed t o tr ans f er m anage m ent of the G R H C f

aci l i ty t o G eor ge R egi onal a nd f orc ont i nued document at i on of fi nanci al
s t at ement s f

r om CM I f

orthe p e r i od a f

t e rDec e mber3 1, 2 00 7. By i t s t e r ms, the 2008 j udgm entpr ovi des onl y f orr es ol ut i on f

orongoi ng i ssues of movi ng the managementand lea se p ro c e ss fo rw a rd fo r th e p a rties . W e fin d th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. 2. St at ut ory com pl i ance. ¶16
. A s a prel i m i nary m at t er, this C ou rt ’s G r eene Cou nt y opi ni on det erm i ned that the tr i al
c o u rt h a d err e d b y fin d in g tha t th e G R H C tru ste e s h a d a u th o rity to e n ter in to th e a g re e m e n ts
w ith o u t th e a p p r o v a l o f th e B o a rd o f S u p e rv is o rs . G re e n e Co u n ty , 10 So. 3d at431. T he C o u rt v ie w e d th e a g re e m e n ts a s n o n b in d in g , re n d e ri n g a ll o th e r d is p o s itv e is s u e s m o o t. Id
. a t 4 3 3 . T o th e e x ten t th a t C M I ar g u e s th a t th e tri a l co u rt err e d b y fin d in g th a t G re e n e C o u n ty compl i ed w i th par agr aphs 3 and 4 of the s econd a m ended f

i nal j udgm entpert ai ning t o t he

### 8

agr eement s betw een CM I and the G R H C trus t ees , orthatthe r el i ef s oughtby C M I s houl d be the i m pl ement at i on of a l ong- t erm m anage m entcontr act , bas ed on pr ovi s i ons i n t he ag ree m en ts an d inco rpo rated into the sec o n d am en d ed fin al j u d g m en t, thes e a rgu m en ts are
w i thoutm er i t , due t o t hi s C our t ’ s re centi nval i dat i on of the agr eement s i n G re e n e Co u n ty . G re e n e Co u n ty , 10 So. 3d at433 ¶1 7. C M I al s o cont ends t hatthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d by f i nd i ng t hatG r eene C ount y had compl i ed w i th t he s t atut ory r equi r ement s of M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 41- 13- 15 w hen G r eene C ounty had of

f er ed the nur s i ng hom e and hos pi t al f orl ong- t erm l eas e. W hi l e C M I s eeks reli ef u n d er the sec o n d am e n d ed fi n al j u d g m en t and 2 0 0 5 co n tr ac ts, that b eing lon g -t erm
m anage m entof

the f aci l i t i es , the r el i ef

i s no l ongeravai l abl e beca us e of thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n G re e n e Co u n ty . N o tw ith sta n d in g tha t C M I’s req u e ste d relie f is n o w fo re c lo s e d b y th is C ou rt ’s G re e n e Co u n ty o p in io n , C M I’s sta tu to ry co m p lian c e arg u m e n ts su rv iv e o n a p p e a l. ¶18. C M I m akes tw o s t atutor y argum ents o n app eal
. F i rs t , C M I ar gu es that G eor ge R egi onal gave i nadequa t e R eques tf orP r oposal (RF P) st at ement s . Second, C M I ar gues that G reene C ou nty f

ai l ed to com ply w i th p ub l i cat i on requi rem ents . ¶ 1 9
. T h e P u b lic H e a lth L a w c o v e rs a w id e v a ri e ty o f h e a lth is s u e s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 41- 1- 1 t o 41- 115- 1 ( R ev. 2009)
. I ncl uded i n the t i t l e’ s pr ovi s i ons i s a s ect i on conce r ni ng
c o m m u n ity h o s p ita ls w ith in o u r S ta te . See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 41- 13- 1 t o 41- 13- 107 ( R ev. 20 09 )
. Chap t e r1 3 of Ti t l e 4 1 pr ov i de s the p r oc e du r e s f oro pe r a t i ng a nd mai nt ai ni ng
c o m m u n ity h o s p ita ls
. Id
. W hi l e m any of the f or m ers t atut es i n thi s chapt erar e now r epea l ed,

### This Edit or’ s Not e f oll ows Mi ss is sippi CodeSec ti ons: 41-13- 10; 41- 13-11; 41-13- 5 

### 15 ; 41 -13 -29 ; 41 -13 -35 ; 41 -13 -36 ; 41 -13 -38 ; and41 -13 -47
. 9 o th e r c u rre n t p ro v isio n s p ro v id e a n “ E d ito r’s N o te” fo llo w in g the sta tu te. T h e m a in sta tu te 5 ati s sue in t hi s appea l i s M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 13- 15 and w hetherthe s peci al chanc el l orcorr ect l y det erm i ned t hatG r eene C ounty com pl i ed w i th t he s t atut ory pr ovi s i ons of Sect i on 41- 13- 15 ( 7) , ( 8) , and ( 9)
. T he s peci al chanc el l or , i n hi s 2008 orderdet erm i ned th a t G re e n e C o u n ty “ su b sta n tiall y ” c o m p lied w ith S e c tio n 4 1 -1 3 -1 5 . T h e E d ito r’s N o te p ro v id e s fo r th e lib e ra l co n stru c tio n o f S e c tio n 4 1 -1 3 -1 5 a n d sta tes : L aw s of 1985, ch. 511, §§ 1, 10, ef f f r om and af

t erJ ul y 1, 1985, provi de as fol l ow s: “SE C T I O N 1. I ti s the i nt entand purpos e of thi s actt o cl ar i f

y and expa nd the pow er of boar ds of

trus t ees of

comm uni ty hos pi t al s s o as t o al l ow s uch co m m u n ity h o sp it als t o o p era te effi cien tl y , to o ffer co m p eti ti v e h ea lth ca re serv ices, t o re sp o n d m o re e ffecti v ely to n ew d ev elop m en ts an d reg u lat o ry c h a n g e s in th e h e a lth c a re a re a a n d to c o n tin u e to se rv e a n d p ro m o te th e h e a lth a n d w e lfa re o f th e citize n s o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i. T hi s ac t s hal l be l i beral l y cons t rued s o as t o gi ve ef f ect t o s uch i nt ent and p urpose . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -13 -15 (em p h asis ad d ed ) ( See L aw s 1985 , C h. 511, § 2, ef f
. J ul y 1, 1 9 8 5 ; L a w s 2 0 0 2 , C h . 4 4 1 , § 1 , e ff. J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 2 ). W ith th e E d ito r’s N o te a s g u id a n c e to th is C o u rt c o n c e rn in g th e L e g isla tu re ’s in ten t, a lib e ra l co n stru c tio n o f S e c tio n 4 1 -1 3 -1 5 is appr opr i at e. T he s peci al chanc el l or ’ s det erm i nat i on thatG r eene C ounty “s ub st ant i al l y” compl i ed w i th the s t atut e i s m or e ac cur at el y des cr i bed as i n com pli ance gi ven a l i ber al
cons tr uct i on of

the s t atut e. A . R e q u e sts fo r P r o p o sa ls

### 10

¶2 0
. T h is C o u rth as re v iew ed the a rgu m en ts asserted b y C M I, a n d w e find that they are
w ith o u t m e rit. C M I a s s e rt s th a t G e o rg e R e g io n a l fa iled to re sp o n d p ro p e rly to c e rta in R eques t s ForPr opos al s ( R FPs) advert i s ed by G r eene C ounty, thus , i m pl yi ng thatG r eene C ou nty dev i at ed fr om the R F P process by fai l i ng t o fol l ow the p rocedu res provided in M i ss. C o d e S e c tio n 4 1 -1 3 -1 5 a n d a c c e p tin g G e o rg e R e g io n a l’s re sp o n se s. G re e n e C o u n ty
m ai nt ai ns thatC M I f

ai l ed t o addr es s thi s i s s ue bef or e the tr i al court , thus , t he tr i al courtnever had an opportuni ty t o rul e on the i s s ue. ¶ 2 1
. A re v iew o f th e tra n sc rip t o f th e Ja n u a ry 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , h e a rin g re v e a ls th a t C M I g e n e ra lly
ar gued thatG eor ge R egional had f ai l ed t o re s pond adequa t el y t o the R FPs pr opounded by G r eene C ounty. H ow ever , C M I di d nota r gue the s ame i s s ues atthe J anuary 23, 2008, hear i ng thati texpr es s ed i n det ai l i n i t s br i ef bef or e thi s C our ton ap pel l at e r evi ew . A tthe hea r i ng, C M I a rg u e d , in p a rt: B y [ C ouns el f

orC M I ] : [ I] t ’s obvi ous i f you l ook atthe R FP as publ i s hed to th e p u b lic a n d th e n y o u lo o k a t in sta n c e s in w hi ch t hey ac cept ed t erm s thatw er e not c on s i de r e d –tha tw er e n otpu tf orth i n the RFP. Y ou can’ tdo that
. I mean f orobvi ous r eas ons , you k n o w a n d th a t law a p p lies a c ro ss th e b o a rd in county governm ent . . . . So t hey’ r e cons tr ai ned by the term s o f th e R F P . S o they d id n o t th ere fore c o m p ly w ith 4 1 -1 3 -1 5
. I n i t s br i ef

, C M I ci t ed f

ourr eques t s and f

ourr es pons es gi ven by G eor ge R egi onal , cl ai m i ng that the respon ses devi at ed fr om the R F P p rocess . ¶22. “Fur therm or e, w hen a pa r ty m akes an obj ect i on on s peci f i c gr ounds , i ti s cons i der ed
a w ai verr egar di ng al l othergr ounds
. ” Cope land v. Cope land , 90 4 S o. 2 d 10 66 , 1 07 3 (M i ss. 2004) ( ci t i ng B u rn s v . S ta te , 729 So. 2d 203, 219 ( M i s s . 1998) )
. A n i s s ue mustf i r s tbe

### 11

p re s e n te d to th e tr ia l c o u rt b e fo re it is ra is e d to th e a p p e lla te c o u rt . W il bu rn v. W

il bu rn , 991 So. 2d 1185, 1191 ( M i s s . 2008)
. T hi s C our thas hel d thati s s ues thata r e notr ai s ed atthe tr i al
c o u r ta n d wh i c h th e tr i a l c o u r th a d n o o p p o r tu n i ty t o ru l e o n c a n n o tb e r a i s e d f o rth e f i r s tt i me in th e a p p e lla te c o u rt . Fi tc h v. Vale ntine , 9 5 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 2 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). ¶23. N otw i ths t andi ng the f act that C M I f

ai l ed t o m ake a s peci f

i c ar gum ent conce rni ng t he R FPs atthe hear i ng, w e f i nd thataf

t era r evi ew of

G r eene C ounty’ s R FPs and a r evi ew of t he
answ ers provided b y G eorge R egional , the is sue i s w i tho ut m eri t . C M I cl ai m ed thatatl east fou r of the R F P s p o sed by G ree n e C o u n ty ha d i n ad eq u ate resp o n ses b y G eo rge R eg ion al. In the s peci al chanc el l or ’ s J une 11, 2008, m emora ndum opi ni on, w hi ch aga i n w as not i ncorpor at ed by r ef

er ence i nt o t he 2008 j udgm ent , the tr i al courts t at ed: Second, G R H C and C M I ar gue thatthe r eques tforpropos al s ( “R FP”) cont ai ns cert ai n pr ovi s i ons w hi ch ca nnotbe cha nged af t eri s s uance . W i thoutpr ovi di ng s peci f i c r ef er ence t o the devi at i ons , G R H C and C M I ar gue thatthe pr opos al from G eo rge C o u n ty H o sp it al co n tai n ed i tem s n o t l ist ed in the R F P
. T h e C o u rt d o e s n o t fin d a n y d e v iatio n in th e p ro p o sa l as c o m p a re d to th e R F P th a t w o u ld req u ir e the C o u rtto g ran t th e re li ef req u ested b y G R H C an d C M I. W e agree. C M I ’ s as s ert i ons thatG eor ge R egi onal f ai l ed t o r es pond t o the R FPs amount ed to n o thing m o re tha n a m att er o f t ed iou s se m an ti cs . A cc o rdin g ly, th e tri al co u rtd id n o t err by f i ndi ng thatG r eene C ount y compl i ed w i th the R FP re qui r ement s of Sect i on 41- 13- 15. B . P ubl i cat i on ¶24. O n the s econd i s s ue, f ai l ur e t o compl y w i th publ i cat i on r equi r ement s , w e f i nd that the tr i al court , gi ven t he l i ber al cons truct i on i nt ended by the Legi s l atur e, corr ect l y f ound t hat G r eene C ounty c om pl i ed w i th the s t atut ory r equi r ement s of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 13- 1 5 ( 7 ) b y e n t e r i n g i n t o a l e a s e wi th Ge o r g e Re g i o n a l
. S e e M i s s . Co d e An n . § 4 1
- 1 3
- 1 5
. CM I

### CMI argue s ( 1) the RFPs wer e not prope rly ans wer ed ( addr es se d in Se ction 1) ; ( 2) 6 

### thele as e wa s not

pre se nte d to t

he Board of

Trus te es ; and (3) theBoard of Super vis ors fa il ed to fo llowpublicatio n requirements: (a) no publicatio n sev en d ays b efore th e leas e w as to take effect; (b ) lease was n ot p resentedto th e Bo ard o f Tru stees; (c) failure to publish correctlyfor tw enty -on e day perio d; and(d) Greene Co unty cann ot enter into a lease until after andelectionandvo ter app rov al. 12 ar gues a m yri ad of i s s ues pert ai ni ng t o the publ i cat i on and exe cut i on of the l eas e betw een G re e n e C o u n ty a n d G e o rg e R e g io n a l, ho w e v e r, C M I’s a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e rit,
es peci al l y gi ven the Legi s l atur e’ s i nt entt o l i ber al l y cons true the s t atut e. 6 ¶25. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 13- 15( 7) , ( 8) , a nd ( 9) pr ovi des the pr ocedur e f orl eas e of
a comm uni ty hos pi t al
. T he appl i cabl e port i ons of Sect i on 41- 13- 15 s t at e: (7 )( a ) E x c e p t a s p ro v id e d f o rin s u b s e c tio n (1 1 ) o f t h is s e c tio n , ow ners m ay lea se a ll o r p a rt o

f th e p ro p e rty , re a l o r p e rs o n a l, co m p ris in ga c o m m u n ity hos pi tal , i ncl udi ng any rel at ed faci l i t i es, w herever l ocated, and / or ass et s of s uch comm uni ty hos pi t al , t o any i ndi vi dual , partner s hi p orcorpor at i on, w hether oper at i ng on a nonpr of

i tbas i s oron a prof

i tbasi s , or t o t he boar d of trus t ees of s uch comm uni ty hos pi t al ora ny otherow nerorboar d of trus t ees , s ubj ectt o the a p p lic a b le p ro v is io n s o f s u b s e c tio n s (8 ), ( 9 ) a n d (1 0 ) o f t h is s e c tio n . . . . Such l eas e s hal lbe s ubj ect

t o the ex pr es s appr oval

of the boar d of

trust ees of

the com m uni t

y hos pi tal , exce pti n the ca s e w her e the boar d of t rust ees of the c o m m u n ity h o s p ita l w ill b e th e le s s e e . . . . If th e o w n er w ishe s to lea se a co m m u n it y h o sp ita l w ith o u t an o

p ti o n to se ll

it and the appr oval

of the boar d of

tr us t ees of

the com m uni t

y hos pi talis r equi r ed butis notgi ven w i thi n thi r ty ( 30) days of the r eques tf

ori t s appr oval by the o w n e r, then the ow nerm ay enters uch l ease as descr i bed her ei n on the f ol l ow i ng condi t i ons : A r es ol ut i on b y the o w n er des cr i bi ng i t s i nt ent i on t o ent er such l eas e s hal l be publ is hed on c e a w e e k f

ora tl e a s tthr e e ( 3) c on s e c ut i ve w eeks i n atl eastone (1) new spaper pub l i shed i n the cou nty orci ty, as the case m ay be, ori f

none be s o publ i s hed, i n a ne w s paperhavi ng a gene r al ci r cul at i on ther ei n. T he f

i r s tpubl i cat i on of

s uch not i ce s hal l be made notl es s than tw enty- one ( 21) days pr i ort o the dat e f i xed i n such r es ol ut i on fort he l eas e of the comm uni ty hos pi t al and the las tp ub l i cat i on s hal l be made notm or e than s e v e n (7 ) d a y s p ri o r t o s u c h d a te . I f , on orpr i ort o the dat e f i xed i n s uch r es ol ut i on f

orthe l eas e of

the com m uni t

y hos pi tal , ther e s hal lbe f

i l ed w i th the cl erk of the ow nera pet i t i on s igned by tw ent y per cent

( 20% ) orf i f t een hundr ed ( 1500) , whi chev eris l es s , of the qual i f i ed voters of

s uch ow ner, r eques t i ng that

### 13

a n e lec tio n b e c a lle da n d h e ld o n th e q u e stio n o

f th e lea se o

f th e c o m m u n ity hos pi tal , then i ts hal lbe the dut y o f the owner to cal land pr ovi de f orthe holdi ng of

an el ect i on as pet i t i oned f or . I n s uch cas e, no s uch l eas e shallbe ent er ed i nto unl es s authoriz ed by the af f i r m at i ve v ot e of

the m aj or i t

y of the qu ali f i ed vo t ers of

s uch o w ner w ho vot e on the pr opos i t i on ats uch el ect i on. N ot i ce of

s uch el ect i on s hal l be gi ven by publ i cat i on i n l i ke manneras her ei nabove pr ovi ded f

ort he publ i cat i on of the i ni t i al re s ol ut i on. S uch el ect i on s hal l be conduc t ed and the r eturn ther eof m ade, canva s s ed and decl ar ed as near l y as m ay be i n l i ke m anneras i s now or m ay her eaf t erbe pr ovi ded by l aw in th e c a s e o f g e n e ra l e le c tio n s in s u c h o w n e r. I f , on orpr i ort o the dat e f i xed i n the ow ner'

s resol ut i on f

orthe l eas e of

the com m uni t

y hos pi tal , no s uch pet i t i on as des cr i bed above is f i l ed w i th the clerk of

the ow ner, then the ow ner m ay pr ocee d w i th the l eas e s ubj ect t o the otherrequir em ent s of this s ect i on. S u b j e c tt o th e a b o v e c o n d i t i o n s , th e l e a s e a g r e e me n ts h a l l b e u p o n s u c h t e r ms and condi t i ons as m ay be a gr eed upon and m ay m ake s uch pr ovi s i on f or t ransf er s of t angi bl e and i nt angi bl e per s onal pr operty and oper at i ng f unds and/ orf orthe as s um pt i on of

l i abi l i t i es of

the comm uni ty hos pi t al and f ors uch l ease pay m ents , al l as m ay b e deem ed ap propri at e by the o w ners.

. . . . ( 8) W he ne ve ra ny o w ne rd e c i de s tha ti tmay b e i n i t s b e s ti nt e r e s t s t o s el l or l eas e a c om m uni ty hos pi t al as pr ovi ded f orunders ubs ect i on ( 7) of t hi s s ect i on, the o w n er sh all fir st co n tr ac t w ith a c erti fi ed p u b li c ac co u n ti n g firm , a law fi rm orcom pet entpr of

es s i onal heal th car e orm anage m entcons ul t ant s t o r evi ew the curr ent operat i ng con dit i on of the comm uni ty hos pi t al
. T he revi ew shal l con si st of , atm i ni m um , the f

ol l ow i ng: ( a) A r evi ew of

the comm uni ty' s inpat i entf aci l i ty needs bas ed on curr entw or kl oad, hi s t or i cal t r ends and pr oj ect i ons , bas ed on dem og raphi c data, of f

utur e need s. ( b) A r evi ew of

the compet i t i ve mar ketf ors ervi ces , i ncl udi ng otherhos pi t al s w hi ch s erve the s ame ar ea, the s ervi ces pr ovi ded and the m arketpercepti on of the co m peti t i ve h ospit al s. ( c) A r evi ew of

the hos pi t al ' s s tr engths r el at i ve t o the compet i t i on an d i t s capa ci ty t o compet e i n l i ghtof pr oj ect ed tr ends and compet i t i on. (d ) A n a n a ly sis o f th e h o sp ital' s o p tio n s, in c lu d in g se rv ice m ix and pri ci ng strat egies
. If the stud y con cl ud es that a s al e or l ease s houl d occur , t he study shal l i ncl ude an anal ys i s of w hi ch opt i on

### 14 w o u ld b e b e st fo r th e c o m m u n ity a n d h o w m u c h re v e n u e s s h o u ld be der i ved f

r om the l eas e ors al e. ( 9) A f t ert he r evi ew and ana l ys i s unders ubs ect i on ( 8) of thi s s ect i on, an ow ner m a y c h o o se to se ll o r le a se th e c o m m u n ity h o sp ital. If a n o w n e r c h o o se s to se ll su c h h o sp ital o r le a se th e h o sp ital w ith a n o p tio n to se ll i t, th e o w n e r sh a ll f ol l ow the pr ocedur e s peci f i ed i n s ubs ect i on ( 10) of thi s s ect i on. I f an ow ner choos es t o l eas e the hos pit al w i thoutan opt i on t o s el l i t , i ts hal l f i r s ts pr ead upon i t s m i nut es w hy s uch a l eas e i s i n the bes ti nt er es t s of the per s ons l i vi ng i n the ar ea s erved by t he f aci l i ty t o be l eas ed, and i ts hal l m ake publ i c any a nd a ll find in g s a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n s m a d e in th e re v iew re q u ire d u n d e r p ro p o sa ls fo r th e lea se , w h ich sh a ll state c lea rly th e m in im u m re q u ire d ter m s o f a ll r es pondent s and the eva l uat i on pr ocess t hatw i l l be us ed w hen the ow ner r evi ew s the pr opos al s . T he ow ners hal l l eas e t o the r es pondents ubm i t t i ng the highestand bestpropo sal
. In no case m ay the ow ner dev i at e fr om the p rocess provided for i n the r equ estforpropo sal s. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -1 3 -1 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶ 2 6
. “ O u r d u ty is to c a re fu lly r e v ie w s tatu to ry lan g u a g e a n d a p p ly its m o st re a so n a b le i nt erpr et at i on and meani ng t o the f act s of a part i cul arcas e. ” P ope v. B r ock , 912 S o. 2d 935, 937 ( M i s s . 2005)
. “[ W ] here st at ute i s pl ai n and unambi guous , ther e i s no r oom f or
cons truct i on. ” K

er r-McG ee Ch em . Cor

p. v. B uelow , 670 So. 2d 12, 17 ( M i s s . 1995) ( ci t i ng Cla rk v. S ta te ex re l. M iss . S ta te Me d

. A ss 'n , 3 81 So
. 2 d 10 46 ( M i s s . 1 98 0) )
. “W hen
cons trui ng the meani ng of a s t at ut e, w e mustl ook atthe w or ds of the s t atut e. ” A dam s v. B aptis t Mem ’l Hosp. -D es oto, I

nc. , 965 So. 2d 652, 656 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng P inkton v. S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 3 0 6 , 3 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶27. T he s t atut ory l anguage of Sect i on 41- 13- 15( 7) ( a) pr ovi des that an ow ner m ay l eas e a
comm uni ty hos pi t al subj ectt o t he appl i cabl e subs ect i ons (8) , (9) , or( 10)
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 13- 15( 7) (Rev. 2009). H ow ever , i f the ow nerdeci des t o l eas e the comm uni ty hos pi t al
w i thoutan opt i on t o s el l , then appr oval of the boar d of

trus t ees i s r equi r ed. M i s s . C ode A nn.

### 15

§ 41- 13- 15 ( 7)
. Shoul d the boar d of t rust ees no tgi ve appr oval w i thi n thi r ty days of the
re q u e st fo r a p p ro v a l b y th e o w n e r, th e n th e o w n e r “ m a y e n ter su c h lea se ” u p o n c e rta in condi t i ons . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 13- 15 ( 7)
. T hos e condi t i ons incl ud e publ i cat i on of t he lea se fo r th re e w e e k s. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -1 3 -1 5 (7 ). H o w e v e r, if a p e tit io n o f th e re q u isite
num berof

qual i f i ed vot er s i s f

i l ed w i th the cl erk r eques t i ng an el ect i on, then, the ow nerhas a duty t o cal l and pr ovi de f oran el ect i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 13- 15 (7)
. “I n s uch ca s e, no
s uch l eas e s hal l be ent er ed i nt o unl es s author i zed by t he af f i r m at i ve vot e of

the maj or i ty of t he qu a l i f

i e d vo t e r s . . . . ” M i s s . Code Ann. § 4 1- 13
- 15 ( 7)
. I f n o pe t i t i on i s f

i l e d, then t he
ow nercan pr ocee d w i th the l eas e subj ectt o t he r equi r ement s of the se ct i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 4 1 -13 -15 (7). ¶28
. It i s un dis pu t ed that G reene C ou nty and G eorge R egional enter ed i nto a si gn ed leas e agr eementon O ct ober22, 2007. T he l eas e w as t o go i nt o ef f ecton J anuary 1, 2008, and the
ma n a g e me n to f

th e h o s p i t a l wa s t o c h a n g e f r o m CM I t o G e o r g e Re g i o n a l
. Ag a i n , CM I pr es ent s a numberof

i nst ances w her e G r eene C ounty al l egedl y f ai l ed t o compl y w i t h the
s t atut e. ¶29. G r eene C ount y s ent out a l i s t of R FPs i n or der t o s ol i ci t r es pons es f or the oper at i on of the fa cil ity . P u rsua n t to S ec ti o n 41 -13 -15 (8), G ree n e C o u n ty h ad a c erti fi ed ac co u n ti n g fi rm
r evi ew the oper at i ng condi t i on of the G R H C
. W hi l e a poi ntof co nte nt i on, the cha ncel l or det erm i ned thatG ree ne C ount y pr ovi ded not i ce of i t s i nt ent i on t o l eas e the f aci l i ty t o the P re s id e n t o f t h e G R H C B o a rd o f T ru s te e s . See M i s s . C od e A nn. § 41- 13- 15( 7) ( a) ( R ev. 2009)
. W hi l e ar gued by C M I as a pr er equi s i t e r equi r ement , ther e i s no s t atut ory r equi r ement t ha ta r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of G r e e ne County a pp e a rbe f or e the G RH C t rus t e e s a nd e xp l a i n t he

### CMI c onte nds that Gree ne County f

ai le d to properly a dverti sethere soluti on for the 7 

### requ ired p eriodof time. G reene C ountyrequ ested th at Th e Green e Co un ty Hera ld publish there soluti on four

time s. George Turne r, e dit or of thene wspa per , te stif ie d that , due to t

he news pape r’ s e rror, there soluti on was not publ is hed on thela st publi cati on dat e of

Dec em ber 27, 2007. Howeve r, thespe ci alchance ll or de te rm ine d that any is suewith noti ceto t he ci ti ze ns of

Gre eneCounty of

there soluti on and int ent

to lea sethe fa ci li ty was res olve d when a pe ti ti on was fi le d and an el ec ti on was hel d. The re for e, no har m res ult ed f

rom thefa ilure to publ is h thela st

timeand any er

ror in publ ic ation wa s c ure d when a petition and el ec ti on occ urr ed wi th t

he c itiz ens ’ m aj ori ty vot e that Ge orgeRegi onalshoul d operat e the f ac il it y. 16 p ro p o se d lea se . H o w e v e r, th e G R H C tru ste e s d id n o t p ro v id e a p p ro v a l o f th e lea se w ith in thi r ty da ys . T her ef

or e, G r eene Count y pa s s ed a r es ol ut i on de s cr i bi ng i t s i nt ent i on t o ent er
s uch l eas e; t o m ake the l eas e ef f ect i ve as of

J anuary 1, 2008; and publ i s hed i tonce a w eek f or
a t le a s t th re e c o n s e c u ti v e w e e k s in a c o u n ty n e w s p a p e r, T h e G re e n e C o u n ty He ra ld
. 7 H o w e v e r, p rio r to D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , a p e tit io n w a s file d w ith th e G re e n e C o u n ty C irc u it C l erk w i th the r equi s i t e numberof s i gnatur es of

G r eene C ounty qual i f

i ed vot er s . The pet i t i on req u ested an elec ti o n to reso lve th e issu e o f w h o s h o u ld lease the c o m m u n ity h o sp it al. In
acc or dance w i th the s t atut e and be caus e of the pet i t i on, G r eene C ounty cal l ed and hel d an el ect i on on the l eas i ng of the f aci l i ty. T he el ect i on w as hel d o n M arch 25, 2008, and the vot er s of G r eene C ount y appr oved the l eas e. A m aj or i ty of c i t i zens vot ed t o a uthor i ze G r eene C ounty t o ent erthe pr opos ed l eas e of the f aci l i ty. ¶30. A f

t er a r evi ew of the r ecor d, thi s C our t f i nds that t he chance l l or ’ s f i ndi ngs w er e not
m ani f es t l y w rong, cl earl y err on eou s, no r w as an err on eou s l egal s t and ard app l i ed. T he spec i al ch an ce ll o r’s i n terpretati o n an d ap p li c a tio n o f the law w as c o rrect. G iven the L eg isl ature ’s deci s i on t o l i ber al l y construe m any of t he T i t l e 41, C hapt er13 s t atut es , i ncl udi ng Sect i on 41- 1 3 -1 5 , w e c a n n o t sa y th a t th e sp e c ial c h a n c e llo r e rre d b y fin d in g th a t G re e n e C o u n ty

### 17

co m p lied w ith the p rov isi o n s o f S ec ti o n 4 1 -13 -15
. T h ere fore , o n the issu e o f st atuto ry compl i ance , thi s C our taf f i r m s the tr i al court ’ s det erm i nat i on thatG r eene C ounty compl i ed
w i th Sect i on 41- 13- 15. 3. C ont e m pt ac t i on. ¶31. C M I cont ends that the tr i al court err ed by f i ndi ng i t i n cont empt of par agr aph 11( 3) of the seco nd am end ed fi nal j ud gm ent and i m po si ng $7 , 50 0 in sanct i on s. ¶32
. “T he d eci si on t o h old a p erso n o r en ti ty in c ri m inal o r civ il c o n tem pt al so i s a di s cr et i onary f

unct i on of

the tr i al court . ” I

n r e Spencer , 9 8 5 S o . 2 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). Is s u e s o f c o n te m p t a re q u e s tio n s o f la w to b e d e c id e d o n a c a s e -b y -c a s e b a s is
. R. K. v. J . K. , 946 S o. 2d 764, 777 ( M i s s . 2007)
. “R egar di ng a det erm i nat i on of cont empt , a tr i al courtdue t o i t s t empora l and phys i cal pr oxi m i ty t o the part i es ‘ i s i nf i ni t el y more c om pet entt o deci de the mat t er . ’ ” Id
. ( quot i ng Cum be r land v. C um be r land , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). ¶33. T he f

i r s t det erm i nat i on i s w hether the al l eged cont empt i s ci vi l or cr i m i nal i n natur e. I n re W il liam s on , 838 So. 2d 226, 237 ( M i s s . 2002)
. “I f the pr i m ary purpos e of t he cont empt
o rde r i s to en forc e the ri g h ts of p ri v ate p arty li ti g an ts or en forc e c o m p li an ce w ith a c o u rt
or der , then the cont empt i s ci vi l
. ” Id
. W hen the ac t i on i s f orci vi l cont empt , the st andar d of
re v ie w is th e m a n if

e s t- e rr o r r u le
. Id
. ¶ 3 4
. O n a ss e ss in g a tto rn e y s’ fe e s fo r c o n tem p t, th is C o u rt h a s sta ted th a t th e tria l co u rt is th e p ro p e r a u th o ri ty to a w a rd th e fe e s . Mab us v. Mab us , 9 1 0 S o . 2 d 4 8 6 , 4 8 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). T h is C o u rtw il l n o t d istu rb a c h an ce ll o r’s aw ard of att o rne y s’ f ee s p rov ided the lo w er c o u rt is n o t m a n if

e s tly w ro n g . Id
. Fur ther , “[ w ] here a party' s i nt ent i onal m i s conductcaus es t he
o p p o sin g p a rty to e x p e n d ti m e a n d m o n e y n e e d les sly , the n a tto rn e y fe e s a n d e x p e n se s s h o u ld

### 18

be aw ar ded t o the w r onged party. ” Id
. ( quot i ng State v. B lenden , 748 So
. 2d 77 , 87 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 )). ¶35. Par agr aph 11 and s ubs ect i on ( 3) of the s econd a m ended f

i nal j udgm ents t at e: C M I i s or der ed t o s ubm i tt o a f ul l acco unt i ng of

the f i nanci al af

f ai r s of the N ur s i ng H om e and the H os pi t al of G R H C and G r eene C ounty. N o lat erthan f or ty- f i ve days f

r om the dat e of

the Fi nal J udgm ent , C M I s hal l pr ovi de t o the Pr es i dentof

the G R H C B oar d of

T rus t ees , the f

ol l ow i ng: 3. A n i t em i zed s t at ements how i ng al l expendi tur es m ade by CM I f r om G R H C ’ s r es erve f

und. T he s t at ements hal l i dent i f y the dat e of

the expendi tur e, the i t em(s ) pur chas ed, the amount pa i d, the r eas on f orthe pur chas e, and the pl ace w her e the i t em(s ) pur chas ed w as us ed. F o llo w in g C M I a n d th e G C H C tru ste e s e n ter in g into an O c to b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 lea se a g re e m e n t, G r eene C ou nty fi l ed a mot i on f orcont empt and otherr el i ef on O ct ober22, 2007. I n t he D ec em b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , o rde r on m o ti o n for c o n tem p t and o ther relief, the tri al co u rt acknow l edged thata numberof the pr ovi s i ons i n the s econd amended f i nal j udgm ent“s et f or th the r i ght s , dut i es and obl i gat i ons of the par t i es undert he t erm s of the A gr eement s . ” The tr i al courti ncl uded par agr aph 11( 3) as a pr ovi s i on i n t he se cond am ended f i nal j udgm entt hat pr ovi ded f

orthe r i gh t s, dut i es , orobl i gat i ons underthe or i gi nal 2005 agr eement s betw een C M I a n d G R H C
. ¶36. T hi s C our t , i n G re e n e C o u n ty , ad dress ed t he i ssue of cont empt bas ed on G r eene C ounty’ s m ot i on f

orcont empt and ot herre l i ef fi l ed on O ct ober22, 2007, and the s ubs equent D ece m ber13, 2007 or der
. I n G re e n e Co u n ty , thi s C our ts t at ed:

T he cha ncel l orhel d C M I and t he T rus t ees i n cont empt , f i ndi ng that–by e n t e r i n g th e O c t o b e r1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , c o n tr a c t

– t h e y i n t e r f e r e d w i th th e c o u r t 's D ecem ber 31 , 2007, deadl i ne conc erni ng the pos s i bl e s al e orl eas e of the hos pi t al
. T he ch ancell or' s deadl i ne, how ever , emanat ed f r om agr eement s w hi ch w e have f

ound t o be unenf

or cea bl e. F urtherm or e, the or derhol di ng the

### 19

T ru ste e s a n d C M I in c o n tem p t d id n o t p ro v id e fo r a n y sa n c tio n s. It m e re ly h e ld thatthey w er e i n cont empt of the f i nal orde rand t hatt hey w er e t o “cea s e and des i s tf r om ent er i ng i nt o any f

ur therm anage m entcontr act s . . . . ” FN 13 FN 13. T he or derdi d s t at e thatthe C our tw oul d det erm i ne w h e th e r a n y d a m a g e s, c o sts , o r a tto rn e y ' s fe e s w e re a p p ro p ria te af t erthe Trus t ees and C M I pr oduced the r equi r ed f i nanci al s t at ement s . H oweve r , the r e c or d d oe s no tdi s c l os e tha tany s anct i ons w er e eve rent er ed. B ecause w e fi nd t od ay thatthe co ntr act s w ere no tb i nd i ng , an d b ecause th e c o n tem p t o rd e r re su lted in n o sa n c tio n s, w e fin d th e iss u e m o o t. G re e n e Co u n ty , 10 So. 3d at432. ¶37. H er e, the j udgm entf i ndi ng C M I i n cont empt and i m pos i ng s anct i ons w as bas ed on the trial c o u rt’s J u ly 2 0 0 8 ju d g m e n t. W h e n th e p a rties file d th e ir b rie fs o n th e iss u e o f c o n tem p t, thi s C ourthad notyetr ender ed i t s deci s i on on the cons ol i dat ed appe al i n G re e n e Co u n ty , ther ef or e, nei ther party, northe s peci al chanc el l or , had the bene f i tof thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on. B y the l anguage of

thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n G reene C ount y, f i ndi ng the agr eement s t o be nonbi ndi ng contr act s , ar guabl y, any cont empt a ct i on and i m pos i t i on of s anct i ons s t emm i ng f r om t erm s of

the s econd a m ended f

i nal j udgm ent , w hi ch i n turn w er e bas ed on the 2005 agr eement s bet w een C M I and G R H C , ar e now m oot . H ow ever , the 2008 j udgm entpert ai ns t o the s ubs equentan d con t i nu ed ac t i ons ornonact i ons by the part i es thatoccurr ed af t ert he
se c o n d a m e n d e d fin a l ju d g m e n t a n d th e D e c e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , co n tem p t o rd e r. T h e re fo re , this C o u rtm ay v iew thes e o n g o ing an d co n ti n u o u s ac ti o n s as s u b ject t o the s p ec ial ch an ce ll o r’s
r et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on t o enf or ce hi s j udgm ent s , and the cont empt i s s ue w as notm ootdue t o t he G re e n e Co u n ty opi ni on. Si nce thi s C our thas hel d thata party m ay be i n cont empt even though an or derordecr ee l at eri s det erm i ned t o be erroneou s, w e w i l l addr es s w hethert he

### 20

tr ial co u rterred b y fi n d ing that C M I w a s in c o n tem p t and that att o rne y s’ fees w ere appr opr i at e. ¶38. N otw i ths t andi ng thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n G re e n e Co u n ty , the iss u e o f c o n tem p t in th is thi r d appea l i s bas ed on C M I ’ s al l eged c on t i nu ou s no nc ompl i ance w i th the tr i al court ’ s s econd amended f

i nal j udgm ent . The 2008 j udgm entl i s t ed the pl eadi ngs thatw er e bef or e the s peci al chan cel l or, i n p art , as:
a. T he M ot i on f

orC ont empt a nd O therR el i ef , and f orE xpedi t ed H ear i ng filed b y G re e n e C o u n ty , o n o r a b o u t O c to b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 ; b. T he Supp l e mentt o M ot i on f orCont e mpta nd Ot he rRel i e f f i l e d by G re e n e C o u n ty , o n o r a b o u t D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 ;
c . T he Sup pl e mentt o M ot i on f orCont e mpta nd Ot he rRel i e f f i l ed by G r eene C ount y, on oraboutD ece m ber26, 2007; T he tr i al courti s s ued a D ece m ber13, 2007, or derf i ndi ng C M I and G R H C i n cont empt f or in ter fe rin g w ith th e se c o n d a m e n d e d fin a l ju d g m e n t a n d f a ilu re to p ro d u c e d o c u m e n ts in
acc or dance w i th the s econd amended f i nal j udgm ent . T hi s or derw as the s ubj ectof the s econd appea l as not ed above
. ¶ 3 9
. A fte r th e D e c e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 , o rd e r, G re e n e C o u n ty filed a n o th e r su p p lem e n t to its
m ot i on f orcont empt and otherr el i ef on D ece m ber26, 2007. T her ef or e, atl eas ts om e of

the p lea d in g s c o n c e rn e d a lleg a tio n s o f c o n tin u e d c o n tem p t fo r fa ilu re to p ro d u c e d o c u m e n ts pur s uantt o the tr i al court ’ s s econd a m ended f i nal j udgm ent . T he tr i al courthel d the mot i on f orcont empt i n abeya nce i n i t s D ece m ber28, 2007, or der
. A he ar i ng a l s o w as conduct ed on J anuary 23, 2008. A gai n, the tr i al co urth el d the mot i on f orcont empt i n abeya nce t o al l ow t i m e f ora R ule 30(b)( 6) depos i t i on f r om a C M I f

i nanci al of

f i cert o det erm i ne w hatw as

### 21

or der ed t o b e pr oduced unde rthe s econd a m ended f i nal j udgm ent . T her eaf

t er , T hom as K ul uz, chief f i nan ci al off

i cer forC M I, gave d epo si t i on t est i m on y o n the produ ct i on of docu m ents . ¶40. W hi l e noti ncorpor at ed by r ef er ence i nt o the 2008 or der , the s peci al chanc el l or i s s ued a J une 11, 2008, mem or andum opi ni on i n w hi ch the s peci al chanc el l oraddr es s ed the i s s ue of cont empt . I n t he mem or andum opi ni on, the tr i al courts t at ed: 29. O n D ece m ber26, 2007, G r eene C ounty served a Suppl ement al M ot i on fo r C o n tem p t th a t a sk e d fo r r e lief d u e to C M I’s fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith p a r a g r a p h s 1 1 ( 3 )
- ( 6 ) , 1 2 , 1 3 a n d 1 5 o f th e f i n a l j u d g me n t . CM I r es ponds thati thas compl i ed w i th the f i nal j udgm entand pr ovi ded the d o c u me n t s t o GRHC. 30. A ccor ding t o T hom as K ul uz, C M I ’ s 30( b) ( 6) des i gnee a nd C hi ef Fi na nc i a l Of

f i c e r , CM I h a s a dmi t t e d tha ti th a s n otp r od uc ed t he d o c u m e n ts th e C o u rt re q u ire d b e p ro d u c e d in p a ra g ra p h 1 1 (3 ): A n i t emi zed s t at ements how i ng al l expendi tur es m ade by CM I f

r om G R H C ’ s r es erve f und. T he s t at ements hal l i dent i f

y the dat e of

the expe ndi tur e, the i t em(s ) purc has ed, t he am ountpai d, t he r eas on fort he p urcha se, an d the pl ace w here the it em (s ) pur chas ed i s curr ent l y l ocat ed or the ar ea of oper at i on w her e the i t em(s ) pur chas ed w as us ed. F u rth e r, th e C o u rt h a s n o t se e n th is d o c u m e n t o r a n y a ttem p t to c o m p ly w ith p a ra g ra p h 1 1 (3 ) a n d p ro v id e d th e “ ite m iz e d s ta te m e n t” th a t w a s re q u ir e d
. B as ed on the s peci al chanc el l or ’ s r evi ew , C M I f ai l ed t o pr ovi de the r equi r ed document at i on des i gnat ed underthe s econd amended f i nal j udgm ent . T her eaf

t er , i n the 2008 or der , the tr i al
courts t at ed: 1 0
. T h at C M I sha ll b e a n d h ere b y is fo u n d to b e in c o n tem p t for it s fail u re t o compl y w i th par agr aph 11( 3) of the court ’ s Fi nal J udgm ent , and t hat as a resu ltthere o f G ree n e C o u n ty is en ti tl ed to an aw ard o f att o rne y ’s fe e s a n d co sts in th e am o u n t o f $ 7 ,5 0 0 .0 0
. S a id am o u n t sh a ll b e p a id to G re e n e C o u n ty , th ro u g h its a tto rn e y o n o r b e fo re J u ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 8
.

### 22

11. C M I s hal l have unt i l 5: 00 p. m . on J ul y 31, 2008, t o pr oduce a n i t emi zed s t at ements how i ng a l l e xpendi tur es made by C M I f r om G R H C ’ s r es erve fund. Th e st at em ent shal l ident i fy t he d at e of the ex pen diture, the it em (s ) pu rchas ed, the amountpai d, the r eas on f orthe pur chas e, and the pl ace w her e the i t em(s ) pur chas ed i s curr ent l y l ocat ed orthe ar ea of oper at i on w her e the i t em(s ) w as used. C M I shal l have unt i l 5: 00 p. m . on Jul y 31 to p ro d u c e th e sta tem e n ts a n d in fo rm a tio n re q u ire d . If th e sta tem e n t is notpr oduced, C M I shal l be fi ned $500. 00 perday unt i l such t i m e as the s t at ementand i nf

or m at i on i s pr oduced. ¶4 1
. T h is C o u rt , i n th e ca se o f I n r e Contr acti on, E

xclusion and D eannexati on of Cit y of G r enada , 8 7 6 S o . 2 d 9 9 5 , 1 0 0 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ), d e ter m in e d th a t a c ity ’s fa ilu re to c o m p ly w ith a chan cel l or ’ s j udgm entw as notexcus ed by thi s C our t ’ s l at erdet erm i nat i on thatt he chanc el l or ’ s rul i ng w as err oneous . L i kew i s e, i n S tacy v. R oss , th is C o u rt h e ld th a t “I n sh o rt, unl es s w e can s ay thata j udgm entw as voi d a b i ni t i o, one bound by i tmuste i thercompl y or gai n rel i ef f

rom an appr opr i at e courton the pai n of cont empt . ” S tacy v. R oss , 798 So. 2d 1275, 1283 ( M i ss . 2001)
. T hi s C our thas hel d thateven w hen an or derof decr ee w as
err oneous l y or i m provi dent l y gr ant ed, a party cannotus e the err or s as a def ens e t o di s obey th e p ro v is io n s o f t h e c o u rt o rd e r. L adner v. L adn er , 206 So. 2d 620, 623 ( M i s s . 1968) ( overrul ed on othergr ounds ) ( ci t i ng G r i f f i th, M i s s i s s i ppi C hance ry Pr act i ce § 668 ( 2d ed. 1 9 5 0 )); E lli

s v . E lli s , 840 So. 2d 806, 811 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2003) ( “The f actthats uch or der i s er r oneous or i r r egul aror i m pr ovi dent l y re nder ed does notj us t i f y a per s on i n f

ai l i ng t o abi de by i t s t erm s ”)
. T he C our tf ur thers t at ed: I ti s onl y w her e the or derordecr ee i s voi d, o r w her e ther e w as abs ol ut el y no j ur i s di ct i on underany ci r cumst ance s , orw her e ther e i s no s t at e of f act s w hi ch m ake i t , orthe partchar ged t o have bee n di s obeyed, any ot herthan utt er l y of no for ce, that any an sw er at t acking t he d ecree i t sel f i s al l ow ed, – iti s no d efense w hat everthatthe dec r ee i s err oneous s o l ong as notvoi d.

### 23

L adner , 206 So. 2d at623 ( quot i ng G r i f f i th, M i s s i s s i ppi C hance ry P r act i ce § 668 ( 2d ed. 1 9 5 0 )). ¶42. T he G r eene Cou nt y opi ni on di d not voi d the s econd am ended fi nal j ud gm ent or the D ecem ber 2007 cont empt or der
. I ns t ead, thi s C our tdet erm i ned thatthe under l yi ng 2005 contr act s betw een CM I and the G R H C trus t ees w er e i nval i d f orl ack of

author i ty by G r eene C ounty. C ons equent l y, cert ai n i ssues on the f i r s tand s econd appeal w er e moot s i nce the
a rg u m e n ts p ro p o se d b y th e p a rties w e re b a se d o n an a ss u m p tio n th a t th e trial c o u rt c o rre c tly det erm i ned thatthe 2005 contr act s w er e val i d and enf or cea bl e. ¶ 4 3
. T h e se c o n d am e n d e d fin a l j u d g m e n t o b lig a te d C M I t o p ro v id e d o c u m e n tatio n in
acc or dance w i th par agr aph 11. T he spec i al chanc el l orr et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on t o enf or ce the pr ovi s i on of

the se cond amended f

i nal j udgm ent . A f

t err evi ew i ng the evi dence , the s peci al chanc el l or de t erm i ned thatC M I had f ai l ed t o compl y w i th par agr aph 11 of the s econd
am en d ed fi n al j u d g m en t and aw ard ed att o rne y s’ fees. T h is C o u rth as h eld th at th e tri al co u rt i s m or e compet entt o de ci de mat t er s of cont empt due t o i t s t empora l and phys i cal pr oxi m i ty. H er e, the tr i al courtr et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on t o enf or ce i t s j udgm ent s . W e ca nnots ay thatthe tr i al
courtw as m ani f

es t l y w rong i n i t s det erm i nat i on thatC M I f ai l ed t o pr ovi de r equi r ed document at i on pur s uantt o the s econd a m ended f i nal j udgm entnorthatthe tr i al cour tw as
m ani f es t l y w r ong by as s es s i ng at t orneys ’ fe es w her e one pa r ty i nt ent i onal l y f ai l ed t o pr ovi de
r equi r ed document at i on r es ul t i ng i n ne edl es s l y expendi ng t i m e and money on the mat t erby op po si ng cou nsel. T his C ou rtaff i rm s the spec i al chan cel l or’ s f i nd i ng of contem pt agai nst C M I and aw ar d of

$7, 500 i n att orneys ’ f

ees t o G r eene C ounty. CO NC L US I ON

### 24

¶44. T he tr i al courtcorr ect l y det erm i ned thatG r eene C ounty had compl i e d wi th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 13- 15( 7) w hen the C ounty of f er ed the hos pi t al forl eas e. I n addi t i on, t he tr i al co urtd i d no terrby f i ndi ng thatC M I w as i n cont empt f orf ai l ur e t o pr ovi de document at i on pur s uant t o the tri al cou rt ’s second am end ed fi nal j ud gm ent and, cons equent l y, the a w ard o f att o rne y s’ fees fo r th e c o n tem p t acti o n w as p rop er. A cc o rdin g ly, th is C o u rt
a ffirm s th e ju d g m e n t o f th e G re e n e C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt. ¶ 4 5
. AF F I RM ED . W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D GR AV E S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, L AMAR AN D K I T CH E NS , J J . , CO NC UR . P I E RC E , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .