IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2017-CA-01352-COA TURNER & ASSOCIATES P.L.L.C., THE ESTATE OF BENNIE L. TURNER AND ANGELA TURNER APPELLANTS

v.
GERALD WATKINS APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/28/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JAMES LAMAR ROBERTS JR. COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: PONTOTOC COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: RANDOLPH W ALKER ANGELA TURNER FORD ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: J. RHEA TANNEHILL JR. JACOB BYSTROM JORDAN NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT DISPOSITION: APPEAL DISMISSED - 12/04/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES AND WILSON, JJ. BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Af ter Gerald W atkins, a roof ing contractor, was injured wh e n h e f e l l o f f a roof , he
h ired Turner & Associates PLLC to f ile a personal-injury lawsuit against the hom eo w n e r
. Years later, W atkins d iscover e d n o a c t i o n was f iled on h is b ehalf

, and the s tatute of
lim itations h ad expired. He f i led a com

plaint against Turner & Associat e s P L L C , Bennie
Turner, and Angela Tur ner (collectively “Turner”), alleging legal m a lpractice/negligence,
breach of contract, intentional or negligent m isrepresentation/f raud, negligent supervision, and intentional/negligent inf liction of em otional distress.¶2. On August 1 3 , 2013, W atkins f iled a m o tion f

o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t , w h i ch the

Pontotoc C ounty Circuit Court denied, f inding there were genuine issues of m aterial f act as

to whether there was a binding contract between the parties a nd whether Turner’s paralegal, Caroly n Turner Karriem , “had the authority to enter into the settlem e n t o f the legal

m alpractice case.” 1 ¶3. On June 28, 2016, W atkins f iled a notice o f d i s c o v e r y , i n c l u d i n g r e q u e s t s f or
adm issions. W h en Turner f ailed to r e s pond, W atkins f i led a s econd m otion f

or sum m ary judgm ent on February 8, 2017, arguing that his r equests f or a d m i s s i o n s were deem ed
adm itted. Turner claim ed it never received the discovery requests. The trial court granted
the m otion, f

inding that under Mississip p i R u le o f Civil Procedure 36, the requests f or
adm issions were deem e d adm i tted and W a tkins was entitled to sum m ary judgm ent. ¶4. Turner appeals, claim ing: (1) W atkins did not prove the underly ing claim would have
been s uccessf

ul; (2) Karriem ’s authority t o e nter into a settlem e nt was not addressed by the
requests f or adm issions; (3) the trial court f ailed to m ake any f

indings of f

act whether Turner
received th e n o tice of service of discovery ; (4) the requests f o r adm issions did not resolve
all genuine issues of m aterial f a ct; and (5) the “release” was not enf orceable. Fi n d i ng the
trial c o urt’s o rder granting sum m ary judgm ent is not a f inal, appealable judgm ent, we dism iss

1 T h ere ap p eared to b e an attem p t b y th e p arties t o settle th e actio n f o r $ 3 0 0 ,0 0 0 , ev id e n c e d b y an “A b so lu te R elease w ith I n d em n i ty an d C o n f id en tiality C o v en an ts” sig n ed b y Watk in s. T h e release p u rp o rted th a t W atk in s r eceiv ed $ 1 8 , 0 0 0 f ro m T u rn er in
co n sid eratio n f

o r th e release an d in d em n ity , b u t h e d id n o t receiv e an y f u rth er co m

p en satio n
. 2f

or lack of jurisdiction. 2

DISCUSSION ¶5. Although t h e i s s u e o f j u r i sdiction was not raised by either party , this C ourt m ust
address on its own initiative whether the trial c o urt’s o rder was a f i nal, appealable j udgm ent. Jeffers v. Saget , 235 So. 3 d 103, 105 (¶8) (Miss. C t. App. 2017). “Jurisdiction is a question
of l aw, w hich we review de novo.” W ay v. Clark , 208 So. 3 d 9 , 1 1 ( ¶ 1 0 ) ( Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Germany v. Germany , 123 S o. 3d 423, 427 (¶8) (Miss. 2 0 1 3 ) )

. “ A f inal,

a p p e alable judgm ent is o ne that adjudicates the m e rits of the controversy which settles al l
issues a s to all t he parties and requires no f urther action b y the [ trial] c ourt.” W alters v.
W alters , 9 56 So. 2d 1050, 1053 (¶8) ( M i ss. Ct. A pp. 2007) (internal quotation m arks

om itted). In its order f

iled on August 28, 2017, the trial court concluded:
On June 2 8 , 2016, c ounsel f or the P l a i ntif

f propounded discovery including interrogatories, request f o r production of docum ents and req u e s t s f or adm issions on the Def

endants. To date, t he Def

e ndants have f

ailed t o respond to the discovery requests. Pursuant to

. . . R u l e 3 6 , t he R equests f or Adm issions are deem ed adm itted since t he Def e ndants f ailed to res p o n d w i t

h in thirty (30) day s. The Requests f or Adm i ssions addressed dispositive item s l ike adm it t i n g t here was a valid contract between the Plaintif f and D ef endants,
a d mi t ting the Def

endants m isrepresented possible awards to Plaintif f ,

2 Watk in s d ied o n D ecem b er 3 0 , 2 0 1 6

. T h ere is n o e v i d e n c e i n th e reco rd o f Watk in s ’s d eath , b u t c o u n s el ack n o w led g ed in th e ap p ellee’s b rief th a t Watk in s is d eceased

. C o u n sel also stated at o ral arg u m e n t th at h e w as aw are o f Watk in s’s d eath w h en f ilin g th e seco n d su m m ary -j u d g m en t m o tio n
. T u rn er’s rep ly b rief arg u es th e trial co u rt’s o rd er w as im p ro p er sin ce th ere w as n o p arty -p lain tif f

. N o su g g estio n o f d eath w as su b m itted , b u t Watk in s ’s co u n sel f

iled a m o tio n f

o r su b stitu tio n o f p arties o n O cto b e r 8 , 2 0 1 8

. H o w e v er, b ased o n o u r d ism issal o f th e ap p e al, w e leav e th is m atter f o r th e trial co u rt, an d w e d ism iss th e m o t io n
. 3adm itting the statute o f lim itations expired on the Plaintif f ’s claim , adm itting neglig e n c e, m isrepresentations, and f raud by Def

endants, and adm itting t hat the Absolute Release was a legally and bind[ ing] docum ent.
In light of these adm issions, under Rule 56 of the [ M ississippi Rules o f Civil Procedure,] there are no genuine issues o f ma t e r ial f a cts and theref

ore sum m ary judgm ent is proper.

IT IS THEREFORE O RDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintif f G erald W a tkins’[ s ] Second Motion f or Sum m ary J udgm e nt s hall b e, a n d h ereby is, GRANTED. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 24th day of August, 2017.

No other judgm e n t i s c o n t a ined in the record. The advisory notes to Mississippi Rule of
Civil Procedure 54 state: “ The term s ‘decision’ and ‘ judgm ent’ are n ot sy nony m o us under
these rules. The decision consists of the court’s opinion which consists o f f indings of

f act
and conclusions of law; t he rendition of judgm ent is the pronouncem ent of that d ecision and the act that gives it legal ef f ect.” ¶6. H e r e , t h e court’s order granted W atkins’s m otion f o r sum m ary judgm ent, but it did

not award W atkins any m onetary j udgm ent or d am ages. The parties have acknowledged that
the am o unt of j u d g me n t to be enrolled is u nclear, and this Court cannot assum e that the
court’s j udgm e nt was the $5,000,000 requested by W atkins in his com plaint and identif

ied in his requests f

or adm issions. Thus, the court’s order did not adjudicate all the issues and requires f urther action by the trial court. 3 See Jackson v. Lowe , 6 5 So. 3 d 8 7 9 , 882 (¶8)

3 Watk in s ’s co u n sel su g g ested th at if th e o rd er i s in terlo cu to ry , h e w o u ld co n sen t to an in terlo c u to ry

ap p eal. We m

u st rej ect th is p ro p o sitio n as th e p arties f a i led to f o llo w th e p ro ced u ral ru l es to f

ile su ch an ap p eal. S

ee M .R .A

. P . 5

. 4(Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (This Court could not assum e a “f in a l o r d e r ’ s silence” on a party ’s
claim f or da m ages constituted a f inal adjudication; theref

ore, the court’s “f

i nal judgm ent”

was an i nterlocutory order.). Since the court’s order was not a f i nal j udgm ent f

or purposes
of appeal, we dism iss f

or lack of jurisdiction. ¶7. APPEAL DISMISSED.
LEE, C.J., GRIFFIS, P.J., C A RLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., C O N C UR. IRVING, P.J., AND TINDELL, J ., NOT PARTICIPATING.

5