I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - I A- 0 0 9 7 6 - S CT RA SF A MI L Y P A R T N ER S , L PA N D RA Y A . S I MS
v. ON NA M BI LOX I , LLC
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 22/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. J AM E S B. P E RS ONS CO UR T FROM W HI CH APPEALED : HA RRI SON CO UN TY C HA NC ERY CO UR T, S ECOND J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT S : L AW RE NC E CA RY GUNN ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: M EGA N M AR THI NE B AR BER CO NN ER J O H N G
. C O R L E W KAT HE RI NE A. S M I T H NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 15/ 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:
CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 6 - I A- 0 1 4 1 4 - S CT ONN AM BI LOXI , LL C
v. RA SF A MI L Y P A R T N ER S , L PA N D RA Y A . S I MS D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 28/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S T E P HE N B . S I M P S ON C O U R T F R O M W H IC H A P P E A L E D : H A R R IS O N C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T , S ECOND J UDI CI AL DI S TRI CT

### 2

ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: J OH N G
. CO RLEW M EGA N M AR THI NE B AR BER CO NN ER KA THER I NE A
. SM I TH AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E S : L AW RE NC E CA RY GUNN NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 15/ 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 D I A Z, P . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. DI AZ , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he di s put e i n t hes e cons ol i dat ed cas es cent er s ar ound an agr eementbetw een O nnam B i l oxi , L L C , R A S Fam i l y Par tner s , L P, and R ay A
. Si m s . T hi s C our ti s a s ked t o det erm i ne
w hetherj ur i s di ct i on i s pr operi n ei therchanc ery or ci r cui tcourt . Fi ndi ng thatj ur i s di ct i on
w as pr operi n ci r cui tcourt , w e af f i r m the ci r cui tc our t ’ s or derde nyi ng the m ot i on t o tr ans f er and r ever s e the cha ncery court ’ s or derdenyi ng s ame. FACTS ¶2
. R A S F a m ily P a rtn e rs, L P , ag ree d t o l ea se ten acre s of l an d on th e B il o x i B a y to O nn a m B i l ox i , LLC , f

orc a s i no de ve l op ment . Ray A. Si ms i s the man a gi ng pa r tne rof RA S, and he a l s o contr act ed w i th O nnam t o s el l hi s s har es of s t ock i n anotherco rporat i on that
o w n s la n d a d

jac e n t t o th e p ro p o se d c a sin o d e v e lo p m e n t. B o th th e lea se a n d sto c k sa le agr eement s w er e s ubj ectt o cert ai n cont i ngenci es , w hi ch i ncl uded appr oval of the si t e by the M i ssi ssi pp i G am i ng C om m i ssi on ; obtai ning a gam i ng l i cense and othernecessary perm i t s; appr oval of

the bui l di ng pl an by the C i ty of B i l oxi ; a hazar dous subs t ance s i ns pect i on; and th e n e g o tia tio n o f a tid e la n d s le a s e .

### 3

¶ 3
. T h e c l o s i n g o f th e l e a s e a n d s t o c k s a l e wa s t o t a k e p l a c e o n S e p t e mb e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 . On A ugus t29, 2005, H urr i cane K at ri na deva s t at ed the G ul f C oas tr egi on, i m pedi ng the
c o n d i t i o n s p r e c e d e n tt o th e a g r e e me n t s . I n a l e t t e rd a t e d No v e mb e r1 , 2 0 0 5 , RAS a n d S i ms not i f i ed O nnam t hat“[ a] l l agr eement s betw een RA S Fam i l y Par tner s and O nnnam B i l oxi [h a d ] e x p ir e d b y th e iro w n te rm s .” ¶4. O n N ov em ber 30, 2005 , O nn am fi led su itin fed era l cou rtagainstR A S and S i m s. R A S t hen f

i l ed a s epar at e s ui tagai ns tO nnam i n t he C i r cui tC our tof H arr i s on C ounty on D ece m ber27, 2005, s e e ki ng a de c l a r a t ory j udgm entthatthe contr act s w er e no l ongerbi ndi ng
as w el l as dam ages forbre ach of contr actand mal i ci ous f i l i ng of a l is pend ens n o t i c e . RA S
a m e n d e d its c ir c u it c o u rtc o m p la in t to in c lu d e S im s a s a p la in tif f o n F e b ru a ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 6
. ¶ 5 . O n n a m ’s fe d e ra l su it w a s d ism iss e d o n Ja n u a ry 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , p u rsu a n t to a p ro v isio n in th e lea se a g re e m e n t, w h ich d e sig n a ted sta te c o u rt a s th e c h o se n fo ru m . O n n a m th e n filed su it thats ame day agai ns tR A S and Si m s i n the C hance ry C our tof H arr i s on C ounty, s eeki ng
s peci f i c per f orm ance of

the l eas e agr eementa nd da m ages f r om Si m s f

orbr eac h of

the s t ock
s a le a g re e m e n t. ¶ 6
. O n n a m filed a m o tio n in th e c irc u it co u rt a c tio n to tra n sfe r to ch a n c e ry c o u rt, w h ile R A S a n d S im s file d a m o tio n in th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt a c tio n to tra n sfe r to c irc u it co u rt. B o th
m ot i ons w er e deni ed, and t hi s C our tgra nt ed both of the i nt er l ocut ory appea l s thatf ol l ow ed. ¶7. T he part i es as k us t o det erm i ne the appr opr i at e j ur i s di ct i on, s peci f i cal l y w hetherthe ci r cui tcourthas pr i or i ty j ur i s di ct i on. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW

### 4

¶ 8
. J u ri s d ic tio n is a q u e s tio n o f l a w w h ic h th is C o u rtre v ie w s d e n o v o . T ru stm a rkN

a t’l B ank v. Johnson , 865 So. 2d 1148, 1150 ( M i s s . 2004). W e use t hi s same st andar d of r evi ew
w hen exa m i ni ng a rul i ng on a m ot i on t o t r ans f erfr om chance ry cour tt o ci r cui tcour t , orvi cev e rs a . ERA Fra n c h ise S y ste m s, In c . v. Ma th is , 9 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 8 , 1 2 8 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ).

DI S CU S S I ON ¶9
. R A S an d S im s arg u e that the circu it co u rt h as p ri o ri ty juri sd ict ion b ec au se they w ere the f i r s tt o f i l e sui t . O nn am , o n the otherhand, ar gues thatthe cha ncery courthas pr oper j ur i s di ct i on becaus e ( 1) the s ui ti nvol ves a pur el y equi t abl e mat t erw hi ch pr oper l y bel ongs i n c hance ry c our t , a nd ( 2) pr i or i ty j ur i s di ct i on, e ven i f a ppl i cabl e, doe s notpr ecl ud e the
c ir c u it c o u rtfr o m c o n s id e ri n g a m o tio n to tr a n s fe r. ¶ 1 0
. “ T h e p rin c ip le o f p rio rity ju risd ictio n p re su p p o se s th a t th e first c o u rt in w h ich su it i s f i l ed i s a c our tof

c om pet entj ur i s di ct i on. ” H ar r is on Count

y D ev. Com m '

n v. D ani el

s R eal E s tate, I nc. , 8 8 0 S o . 2 d 2 7 2 , 2 7 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ), overr ul ed on other g roun ds by Cit y of Ja ckson v. E state of

S tew art , 90 8 S o. 2d 70 3, 71 1 (M i ss. 20 05 ). A ccordi ng l y, w e add res s the i s s ues i n the f

ol l ow i ng order: (1) w hetherthe ci r cui tcourtcoul d have s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on overthe ca s e atal l ; and ( 2) i f so, w e then det erm i ne pr i or i ty j ur i s di ct i on by
e x a m in in g in w h ic h c o u rtth e s u it w a s fi rs t f ile d
. I . W he t he r t he C i r c ui t C our t i s a Court of C om pe t e nt Jur i s di c t i on. ¶11. G ener al l y s peaki ng, ci r cui t court s ar e court s of l aw and chanc ery court s ar e court s of
e q u ity
. See M iss. C o n st. art. 6 , § 15 9 (gra n ti n g ch an ce ry c o u rt s jurisdicti o n o v er “ all m att ers in e q u ity ” ); M iss . C o n st. a rt. 6 , § 1 5 6 (g ra n tin g c irc u it co u rts “ o rig in a l ju ris d ic tio n in a ll
m att ers c ivil an d crim inal in this st ate n o t ves ted b y this C o n sti tuti o n in so m e o ther c o u rt ”).

### 5

H o w e v e r, ch a n c e ry c o u rts a re c o u rts o f lim ited ju risd ictio n , w h ile c irc u it co u rts a re c o u rts
o f g e n e ra l ju ri s d ic tio n . I PT im berlands O

per ating Co. v. D enm is s Cor p. , 726 So. 2d 96, 112 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng H

a ll v. Co rb in , 478 So. 2d 253 ( M i s s . 1985) )
. T her ef or e, “i f one i s s ue i s pr oper l y bef

or e the ci r cui tcourti thas j ur i s di ct i on t o deci de al l i s s ues . ” I d. a t111
. To det erm i ne w hethera courthas s ubjectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on, w e l ook t o the f ace of the
c o m p la in t, e x a m in in g th e n a tu re o f t h e c o n tr o v e rs y a n d th e re lie f s o u g h t. D urant v. Hu m p h re y s Co u n ty Me m ’l Ho sp ./E x ten de d Ca re Fa c ility , 58 7 S o. 2d 24 4, 25 0 (M i ss. 1 9 9 1 ); Hood v. D ept

. of W ildli f e Conse r vation , 571 So. 2d 263, 266 (M i ss. 1 990). I f the compl ai nts eeks l egal r el i ef , even i n combi nat i on w i th equi t abl e r el i ef , t he ci r cui tcour tcan h a v e p ro p e r s u b

je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . I PT im berlands O

per ating Co. , 726 So. 2d at111. ¶12. R A S’ s and S i m s ’ s com pl ai ntsee ks a declar at ory j udgm entt hatt he contr act s ar e no l ongerbi ndi ng as w el l as damages f orbr eac h of

contr actand mal i ci ous f i l i ng of a l is pendens
n o ti ce . T h e re q u est fo r d e c lar atory jud g m en t do es n o t affect ou r an alys is as d ec laratory j udgm ent s ar e “j ur i s di ct i onal l y neutr al
. ” B urnette v. H ar t f or d U nder w r iters I

ns. Co. , 770 So. 2d 948, 952 ( M i s s . 2000)
. Bre ach of c ontr acta ct i ons , on the otherha nd, ar e bett ers ui t ed fo r c ir c u it c o u rt . S o u th e rn L e isu re Ho m e s, In c . v. H a rdin , 74 2 S o. 2d 10 88 , 1 08 9 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ). ¶13. T he compl ai nta l s o r eques t s da m ages f orthe al l eged br eac h of

contr actand m al i ci ous f i l i ng. W hi l e cha ncery court s m ay ce r t ai nl y aw ar d l egal and pu nit i ve dam ages as l ong as
c h a n c e ry ju ri s d ic tio n h a s a tta c h e d , d a m a g e s a re tr a d itio n a lly c o n s id e re d a le g a l r e m e d y . I d. at1090. B eca us e the com pl ai ntsee ks l egal re m edi es , t he ci r cui tcourti s a courtof compet ent j ur i s di ct i on.

### 6

¶1 4
. O n n a m c o u n ter s th a t th e p a ra m o u n t claim i s th e eq u it a b le r e m e d y o f sp e c ific per f or m ance, an d t her ef

or e, the ca s e pr oper l y bel ongs i n chanc ery court . A s di s cus s ed above, the compl ai ntcl ear l y s eeks l egal r emedi es . A ddi t i onal l y, O nnam st i pul at ed t o the
c irc u it co u rt’s ju risd ictio n in its a n sw e r a n d c ro ss -c o m p la in t, ac k n o w led g in g th a t “[t]h is C o u rt h a s ju risd ictio n o f th e p a rties a n d su b jec t m a tter.” F in a lly , O n n a m ’s c ro ss -c o m p lain t,
w hi ch i s near l y i dent i cal t o i t s compl ai ntf i l ed w i th the cha ncery court , s eeks a l egal r emedy in th e fo rm o f d a m a g e s fo r b re a c h o f c o n tra c t. T h is a rg u m e n t is th e re fo re w ith o u t m e rit. I I . W h e th e r th e C ir c u it C o u r t h a s P r io r it y J u r is d ic ti o n . ¶1 5. B eca us e the ci r cui tc ou r ti s a c ou r to f c ompe t e ntj ur i s di c t i on , we next det er m i ne
w h e th e r t h e c ir c u it c o u rth a s p ri o ri ty ju ri s d ic tio n . ¶16. T he “f

i r s tt o fi l e” or“r ace t o t he courthous e” rul e i s w el l
- est abli s hed i n M i s s i s s i ppi
cas e l aw : “ [ w ] her e tw o s ui t s betw een the s am e part i es overthe s ame contr over s y ar e br ought i n cou rt s of

concurr entj ur i s di ct i on, the courtw hi ch f i r s tacqui r es j ur i s di ct i on r et ai ns ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e w h o le c o n tr o v e rs y to th e e x c lu s io n o r a b a te m e n t o f t h e s e c o n d s u it.” S c r u g gs, Mil le tte, Bo z e man & D e n t

, P. A. v. Me rk e l

& Co c k e, P. A. , 804 So. 2d 1000, 1006 ( M i s s . 2001) ( quot i ng I n r e Petition o

f Begg iani , 5 1 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 0 ( M i s s . 1 9 8 8 ) )
. To d e ter m in e w h ich c o u rt firs t a c q u ire d ju risd ictio n , w e lo o k a t “ th e d a te th e in iti a l p lea d in g is f i l ed, pr ovi ded pr oces s i s s ues i n due cour s e. ” Scr uggs , 804 So. 2d at1 006 ( quot i ng Hu ffm a n v. G riffin , 3 3 7 S o . 2 d 7 1 5 (M iss. 1 9 7 6 )). ¶1 7 . T h e circu it co u rt co m p lai n t w as fi led o n D ec em b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , an d the ch an ce ry c o u rt
c o m p lain t w a s file d o n Ja n u a ry 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 . B e c a u se th e c h a n c e ry c o m p lain t w a s file d n e a rly a mont h af

t erthe f i r s tpl eadi ng i n ci r cui tcourt , the ci r cui tcourthas pr i or i ty j ur i s di ct i on.

### 7

¶1 8. T he cha nce l l orf ou nd tha tp r i or i t y j ur i s di ct i on di d notappl y beca us e: ( 1) t he
su m m o n ses w ere serv ed o n the s am e d ate; an d (2) S im s w as n o t a p arty to th e c ir cu itco u rt
a c tio n u n til a fte r th e c h a n c e ry a c tio n h a d b e e n filed . T h e se fa c ts a re o f n o m a tte r. F irst, pr i or i ty j ur i s di ct i on a t t ache s a s l ong a s pr oces s i s s ues “i n due cour s e. ” I d. T he s um m ons f

or the ci r cui tcourtact i on w as s erved J anuary 26, 2006, and thus, s ervi ce of pr oces s w as
a c c o m p lish e d w ith in th e 1 2 0 -d a y tim e fra m e re q u ire d u n d e r M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 4 (h)
. Second, Si m s w as added as a party thr ough an amended compl ai ntw hi ch
w a s file d b e fo re a re sp o n siv e p lea d in g w a s s e rv e d . U n d e r M iss is s ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 5 (c ) t h is a m e n d m e n t r e la te s b a c k to th e d a te o f t h e o ri g in a l c o m p la in t. CO NC L US I ON ¶19
. B ecause the case w as fi l ed fi rs t i n the ci rcui t cou rt , and becau se the ci rcui t cou rt i s a
co u rto f co m p eten t j u ri sd ict ion , this c a se p rop erly b elon g s in tha t cou rt . T h e c h an ce ry
court ’ s or derdenyi ng the mot i on t o tr ans f eri s r ever s ed, and C as e N um ber2006- I A
- 00976- SC T i s r emanded t o the chanc ery courtw i th di r ect i ons t o tr ans f erthatcas e t o the H arr i s on C ounty C i r cui tC our t , Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ct . T he ci r cui tcourt ’ s or derdenyi ng the mot i on to tra n sfe r is a ffirm e d , an d C a se N u m b e r 2 0 0 6 -IA -0 1 4 1 4 -S C T is re m a n d e d to th e c irc u it
courtf orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 2 0
. N O . 20 06 -I A -0097 6-SC T : R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D . N O . 2006- I A - 01414- S C T : A F F I R M E D A N D R E M A N D E D . SM I TH , C. J . , W AL LER , P. J . , EASLEY , CA RL SON , G RA VE S, RA ND O LPH AN D L AMAR , J J . , CO NC UR . DI CK I NS ON , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .