I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CA- 0 0 7 1 9 - S CT S EC RE T AR Y OF S T AT E O F T HE S T AT E O F M I SSI SSI PPI AN D CITY O F O CE

AN SPR I N GS, M I SS I SS I PPI
v. CL YDE H. GUNN, I

I I , D. NEI L HAR RI

S , S R. AN D V E C IE M IC H EL L E H A R R IS
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 23/ 2010 TR I A L J U D G E: H O N . PA TR I CI A D . W I SE COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANTS : RI CKEY T. M OORE AD AM STON E KA YTI E M I CH ELLE P I CK ETT JO H N B . E D W A R D S , II A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : J O H N G
. C O R L E W VI RGI NI A T. M UNFORD 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 - 10/ 13/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he Secr et ary of St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi ( “St at e”) and the C i t y of O cea n Spr i ngs ( “O cea n Spr i ngs ”) br i ng t hi s a ppeal
. The H i nds Count y Chancery Courtenj oi ned the cons t ruct i on of
a sid e w a lk a lo n g th e b e a c h , a d jac e n t to th e se a w a ll, o n p ro p e rty c laim e d b y G u n n a n d H a rris i n O cea n Spr i ngs . T hi s C our tm us tdet erm i ne w hethert he cha ncel l orerr ed i n gr ant i ng t he perm anenti nj unct i on. T he St at e and O cea n S pr i ngs ass er tt hatt he chanc el l orer r ed i n i s s ui ng

### An owner ship dis puteis thesubj ec t of separ at e l itigati on in J ac kson Count y. 1 

### The pr el im inary i njunc ti on was not a ppea le d. 2 

### The l ocati on of Gunn’ s and Har ri s’ s prope rtie s is moreacc urate ly des cribe d as be ing 3 

### on theMis si ss ippiSound. SeeNatio nal O ceanic an d A tmosp heric A dmin istration– Gulf nautical charts , http ://www.ch arts.no aa.go v/O nL ineV iewer/G ulfC oastV iewerT able.sh tml (l as t vi si te d Sept em

ber 16, 2011)
. 2 t he perm anenti nj unct i on beca us e: herf i ndi ng of i rr epar abl e i nj ur y w as nots uppor t ed by
s ubs t ant i al evi dence ; an ade quat e r emedy atl aw w as avai l abl e; and she fa i l ed t o rul e on t he
m er i t s of

t he under l yi ng di s put e r egar di ng ow ner s hi p of the l and w her e the pr opos ed
s id e w a lk w a s to b e lo c a te d
. ¶ 2 . W e fin d n o e rro r in th e c h a n c e llo r’s ea rl ier de term ination th a t irre p a ra b le in ju ry w o u ld
re s u lt if s h e d id n o t g ra n t a n in

ju n c tio n a n d th a t n o a d e q u a te r e m e d y a t la w w a s a v a ila b le . W e concl ud e thatt he cha ncel l or ’ s O r derand O pi ni on i s i n f acta pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on, i ncorr ect l y s t

yl ed as a perm anenti nj unct i on. I ti s cl earf r om i t s l anguage t hatt he cha ncel l or soug ht t o p rot ectt he int eres t s of al l part i es unt i low ners hi p of the pr oper t

y could be det er m i ned
. W e ther ef

or e r emand t hi s cas e t o t he H i nds C ount y C hance r y C our t , vaca t e the 1 perm anenti nj unct i on, and l eave t he ea r l i er - i s s ued pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on i n pl ace . 2

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3. C l yde H
. G unn and D
. N ei l H arr i s , Sr
. , eac h ow n pr oper t y i n an ar ea of O cea n Spr i ngs know n as E as tB eac h. A r oadw ay, a s eaw al l , and the bea ch run adj ace ntt o t he G ul f of M exi co ( “G ul f

”) , s epar at i ng hom e s i t es f r om the beac h a nd G ul f
. T he beac h runs f

r om t he 3 edge of t he s eaw al l t o the s hor el i ne, orw at er ’ s edge. T i del ands – l ands t hatar e s ubj ectt o t he

### Tide lands are“thoselands whi ch aredai ly cove re d and unc over ed by wate r by the 4 

### ac ti on of the tide s, up to t

he m ean line of

theordi nar

y high tide s. ” Mis s. CodeAnn. § 29-15- 1(h ) (Rev . 20 10 ). Miss. C od e Ann. § 29 -15 -5 (R ev. 2 01 0) (“T idelan ds andsubmerg ed land s are h eld 5 

### by thest at e i n tr

ust for useof a llthe peopl e . . . . Littor aland ripari an property owne rs have common l aw and st at

utor y right s under

the Coas ta l Wetlands Prot ec ti on Law whi ch e xte nd int o the wat er s and beyond thelow tideline , and thestate ' s re spons ibi li ti es as tr ust eeext ends to su ch o wn ers as well as to the o ther memb ers of th e public
. 

### ”)
. See Miss. Co de Ann. § 2 9-1 5-3 (2) (R ev. 2 01 0) (d eclaring the L egislature’s aim “to 6 

### re solve the unc erta int

y and di spute s whi ch have ari se n as to t he l ocati on of the boundary betwee n thest at e' s publ ic tru st ti del ands and the upl and property and to c onfi rm theme an high wate r boundary l ine
. . . . ”) . Theme an high- wat er l inei s “the int er se ction of theti dal dat um pla ne of me an high wat er

with theshor e. ” Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 29- 15-1( d) ( Rev. 2010). Mean high wate r i s “ thearit hme ti c m ean of a llthehigh wate rs occurring ina parti cul ar nine te en- year tida l epoch pe ri od; or for a shor te r pe ri od of tim e a ft er

cor re ctions ar e a

ppli ed to th e sho rt term ob servatio ns to redu ce these v alues to the equiv alent n ineteen -year v alue.” Id . at ( c)
. A map pin g p rocedure d etermines the b ound ary b etweenthe state’s p ub lic-trust ti del ands and the upl and property. Mis s. Code Ann. § 29- 15-7 ( Rev. 2010). The Se cr et ar y of St at e s ubmi ts a m ap t o thechance ry c le rks of aff ec te d counti es depi cting “ theboundar y as thecur re nt m ean high wate r line wher e shor el ineis undeve lope d and in deve lope d ar ea s or where there have been e ncroac hme nts , s uch m aps sha lldepi ct theboundar

y as the det er minabl e m ean high wate r l ineneare st theef fe ctivedat e of

theCoas ta l We tl ands Pro tectionAct.”Id . After a s ixty -daynotice-an d-co mment perio d, the Secretaryo f S tate certifies ad op tionof th e final map andrecord s it withthe ap pro priate ch anceryclerks. Id
. Within 120 days of

ce rtif ying t he f ina l m ap, t

he Se cr et ar

y of St at e mus t ide nti fy and noti fy al lp r op e rty owne r s who s e l and s ar e s ub j e c t t o thep ub l i c tr

us t and ar e in vi ol at ion of

the public tru st. Id . “[A]fter three (3) years the b ound ary as set fo rth inthe certifiedmap sh all bec omefi nalunle ss the occupant has subm itte d a c ontr ar y cl ai m t o theoff

ic e of the Sec re tary of

State .” Id . Land owner s “have si x (6) mont hs t o negotiateand s ettl e di ff er enc es with theSecr et ar

y of State .” Id . “ A boundar y det er mination s hal l befi nalupon agr ee me nt of the Se cr et ar

y of St ate andthe owne r and an i nstrum ent se tting f orth theboundar

y agreement shall b e du ly ex ecutedandrecord ed inthe ch anceryco urt where th e pro pertyis loc at ed. Any suc h boundar y agreemen t s hal l bebinding on thest at e and othe r partie s the re to. ” Id
. 3 ebb and f l ow of the t i des – s pan the ar ea f r om t he bea ch s out h i nt o t he G ul f
. T he St at e hol ds 4
s uch t i del ands i n publ i c trus t . T he mean hi gh -w at er l i ne mar ks t he boundary betw een 5 publ i c- t rus tt i del ands and pr i vat e pr oper t y. 6

### “Riparia n” right s r el at e to lando n “the bank of a rive r or

stre am . . . . ” Ste wart

v. 7 

### Hoover , 815 So. 2d 1157, 1163 (Mi ss . 2002) . “ Littor alri ghts ” arethos e “ [r ] ight s c once rni ng prope rtie s a

butting an oce an, sea o r l akerathe r than a ri ver or s tr eam (riparian). Littor al ri ghts areusual ly conc er

ned with the useand enjoym ent of the s hore .” Id . ( ci tati on omi tt ed)
. Gunn and Harris as se rt

ri ghts as soc iate d with prope rty adj acent to the Gul f of Mexi co; therefo re, theyclaim littoral, n ot rip arian, rig hts. 4 ¶ 4 . In 2 0 0 9 , O c e a n S p rin g s re c e iv e d a fe d e ra l g ra n t to fu n d a b e a c h -sid e p u b lic sid e w a lk pr oj ect . O n N ovember9, 2009, O cea n Spr i ngs app l i ed f ora perm i tf

r om t he M i s s i s s i ppi D e p a rt m e n t o f M a ri n e R e s o u rc e s (“ M a ri n e R e s o u rc e s ” ) t o b u ild th e s id e w a lk
. ¶5. O n N ovember16, 2009, t he St at e and O cea n S pr i ngs ent er ed i nt o a l eas e of publ i ct rus tt i del ands , a nar row st ri p of beac h know n as E as tB eac h, w hi ch the l eas e des cr i bes as l ocat ed “s eaw ar d of

t he t oe of

t he s eaw al l
. ” The l eas e perm i t s O cea n Spr i ngs t o us e the bea ch “f ora f r ee publ i c w al kw ay, acc es s ar ea, bi cycl e r acks and otherameni t i es w hi ch s erve a hi gherpubl i c purpos e of prom ot i ng t he publ i c ac ces s t o and publ i c us e of t i del ands and
s u b m e rg e d la n d s .” ¶6. O n J anuary 11, 2010, G unn and H arr i s f i l ed a compl ai nt agai ns t t he St at e and O cea n Spr i ngs , chal l engi ng t he val i di t y of t he l eas e. G unn and H arr i s al l eged thatt he St at e had act ed contr ary t o i t s ow n s t at ut or y l aw , publ i c pol i cy, and the admi ni s t r at i ve rul es and p ro c e d u re s, b e c a u se th e S tate h a d fa iled to o b tain G u n n ’s a n d H a rris’ s p erm issi o n as p ro p e rty
ow ner s , or , ata mi ni m um , as hol der s of l i t t or al orr i par i an r i ght s . G unn and H arr i s r eques t ed 7 t hatt he cha ncel l orent era j udgm entdecl ar i ng t he l eas e voi d and enj oi ni ng t he Secr et ary and O c e a n S p ri n g s fr o m a n y fu rt h e r a c tio n o r p ro c e e d in g u n d e r t h e le a s e . ¶7 . O n Februa r y 9, 20 10 , M a r i ne Res ou r c e s gr a nt e d t he pe r mi t f or c on s t ruc t i on of

t he
s i dew al k, and cons t ruct i on w as s chedul ed t o begi n i n M ar ch 2010.

### 5

¶8. O n M ar ch 24, 2010, t he chanc el l or hel d a hear i ng on G unn’ s and H arr i s ’ s r eques tf or a pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on. T he cha ncel l orgr ant ed t he pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on. T he cha ncel l or f ound t hat( 1) t he subs t ant i al l i kel i hood of pr evai l i ng on t he mer i t s w ei ghed equa l l y i n eac h par t y’ s f avor ; ( 2) G unn a nd H arr i s w oul d l i kel y s uf f eri r r epar abl e i nj ur y beca us e the pr oj ect
w as schedu l ed to be co m plet ed “w i t hin a m at t er of w eeks[ , ] ” befor e l i t i gati on of the m eri t s; ( 3) t he Secr et ary of

St at e orO cea n S pr i ngs w oul d l i kel y not suf f eri r r epar abl e i nj ur y; and ( 4)
m a in ta in in g th e a re a in its n a tu ra l s ta te w o u ld s e rv e th e p u b lic in te re s t. ¶9. O n A pr i l 8, 2010, t he chanc el l or s i gned a “J udgm ent f or Pr el i m i nary I nj unct i on and Set t i ng Secur i t y” gr ant i ng t he pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on “ pendi ng a hear i ng of

this m at t eron the m eri t s, ” r equi r i ng G unn and H arr i s “t o f or t hw i t h pos ta s ecur i t y bond i n t he amountof $250, 000[ , ] ”and s chedul i ng a hea r i ng on t he mer i t s f ora perm anenti nj unct i on and decl ar at or y r el i ef

f orA pr i l 13 a nd 14, 2010. ( E m phas i s added. ) G unn and H arr i s pos t ed the $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 b o n d th e n ex t day
. T h e b o n d stat es th at “sh o u ld the C o u rtfi n d that it s p reli m inary in ju n c tio n w a s w ro n g fu lly g ra n ted , the n th is o b lig a tio n b e v o id ; o th e rw ise to r e m a in in fu ll f or ce and e

f f ect .” (E m p h a sis ad d e d .) W e fin d n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t th e H in d s C o u n ty C hance r y C our thas hel d t hatt he pr el i m i nary inj unct i on w as w r ongf ul l y gr ant ed, ort hat G unn’ s and H arr i s ’ s i nj unct i on bond has been c ance l l ed. ¶1 0. O n A pr i l 13 a nd 14 , 20 10 , t he c ha nc e l l orhe l d a he a r i ng . O n numer ous occa s i ons d u rin g th e h e a rin g , the c h a n c e llo r ex p re ss e d tha t th e issu e o f p ro p e rty rig h ts w a s n o t p ro p e rly bef or e the courtand thata ca s e t o det erm i ne ow ner s hi p w as pendi ng i n J acks on C ount y. ¶11. O n A pr i l 23 , 20 10 , t he chance l l or i s s ued an O r der and O pi ni on denyi ng G unn and H a rris d e c lar a to ry re lief, b u t g ra n tin g a p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n . T h e c h a n c e llo r a g a in

### 6

acknow l edged the di s put e overow ner s hi p of t he l eas ed l and, but“r ef r ai n[ ed] f r om dr aw i ng p ro p e rt y lin e s o r d e c la ri n g f e e s im p le o w n e rs h ip a n d o th e r p ro p e rt y o w n e rs h ip r ig h ts . . . .” T he chancel l orbal ance d t he r equi r ed f act or s f orgr ant i ng an i nj unct i on, f i ndi ng t hat : ( 1) “[ u] nt i l a j udgm entof ow ner s hi p ri ght s i s re s ol ved t hen .
. . t hi s C our t [ ]
. . . m us tbal ance t he Pl ai nt i f f s ’ r i ght s t o f

r ee a nd qui ete nj oym entof t he r eal pr oper t y now i n t hei rpos s es s i on and t he C i t y of

O cea n Spr i ngs [ ’ ] cont ent i on thatthe S ubj ectL eas e i s val i d. A tpr es ent , [ t he
s u b s ta n tia l lik e lih o o d o f p re v a ilin g o n t h e m e ri ts ] fa c to r w e ig h s e q u a lly to b o th p a rt ie s [;]” ( 2) G unn’ s and H arr i s ’ s pr oper t y i nt er es t s “w i l l be i r r epar abl y i nj ur ed i f t he i nj unct i on i s not gr ant ed” a nd “i f

t he s ubj ectl eas e w ere al l ow ed t o cont i nue[ , ]
. . . t he pr opos ed pathw ay
w o u ld b e in p la c e a n d c o n s tru c tio n c o m p le te b e fo re a n y o th e r l itig a tio n c o u ld b e re s o lv e d [;]” (3 ) s h e w a s “ n o t p e rs u a d e d th a t th e D e fe n d a n ts w ill s u ff e r h a rm [if

th e in ju n c tio n is is s u e d ;]” and ( 4) “i ti s i n t he publ i c’ s i nt er es tt o re f r ai n fr om al t er i ng t he natur al habi t atof the Subj ect L eas e ar ea unt i l such ti m e as the ow ner s hi p of t he Subj ectL eas e ar ea a nd r el evant
s ur r oundi ng ar eas i s es t abl i s hed. ” T he chanc el l orconcl uded t hat , on bal ance , equi t y di ct at ed t hatan i nj unct i on shoul d be gra nt ed enj oi ni ng construct i on of the pathw ay “[ u] nt i l t her e has been a f i nal det erm i nat i on of

pr oper t y ow ner s hi p. ”

I S S UES ¶1 2 . T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: (1) W hethert he tr i al cou rterr ed in grant i ng a perm anen ti njunct i on , becau se su b sta n tial e v id e n c e d o e s n o t su p p o rt a fin d in g o f irre p a ra b le in ju ry ; ( 2) W hethert he tr i al cour tcomm i t t ed l egal err orby gr ant i ng a perm anent i nj unct i on, beca us e an a dequat e r emedy atl aw i s avai l abl e; and

### The Se cr etary of Statera is es a f ourth is sue : “ Whether

thetria l c ourt

er re d by 8 

### exc luding te stimony and docum ent s s ubmi tt ed by Wi ll a Br antle y.”The Wi ll a Br antle y evi denc e wa s r el at ed t o the Mis si ss ippiComm is si on on MarineRes ourc es ’ de ci si on to i ss ue a pe rm it for thepathway proje ct , and pre sum ably w ould s upport theargume nt t

hat des tr uction of habi tat i s not

suf fi ci ent t o cons ti tut e “ ir

repar abl e harm ” unde r the c hanc el lor ’s inj unction analysi s. We de cl ineto a ddre ss thi s i ss ue i n depth, bec aus e wefi nd that, with or with out the Wil la

Brantl ey e vide nce , the c hanc el lor did not er r i n fi nding t

hat Gunn and Har ri s woul d be i rr epara

bly harm ed i f an inj unction di d not i ss ue. The c hanc el lor found that Gunn and Harris would behar me d both by ha

bit at destruc ti on and by harm to t hei r r ea l prope rty (s hould the y bede te rm ine d t o own theprope rty) i f c onstruc ti on wer e t o continue bef orethe ir owner ship ri ghts weredete rm ine d. Bec aus e thelatt er ground – harm

to Gunn’ s and Harris ’s re al -property inte rests – provide s s uff ic ie nt j ustif

ic ation f or gr anting an inj unction, the Wi ll a Br antle y evi denc e doe s not af fe ct our c onsi der ation of

thechance ll or’ s decisio n to grant the in

jun ction
. 7 ( 3) W hethert he tr i al cour terr oneous l y aw ar ded a pe r m anenti nj unct i on w i t houtrul i ng on t he mer i t s of t he under l yi ng act i on. 8 L A W A N D A N A L Y S IS ¶13. T hi s C our t “w i l l not di s turb t he f actual f i nd i ng s of a chanc el l or w hen s uppor t ed by
s ubs t ant i al evi dence unl es s . . . t he chanc el l orabuse d hi s di s cr et i on, w as m ani f es t l y w r ong, c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s o r a p p lie d a n e rr o n e o u s le g a l s ta n d a rd .”A - 1 P al let Co. v. Cit

y of Jacks on , 4 0 S o . 3 d 5 6 3 , 5 6 7 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶14. I n det erm i ni ng t he pr opr i ety of i s s ui ng an i nj unct i on, a chanc el l or m us t bal ance f our f act or s : “( 1) t her e exi s t s a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood thatpl ai nt i f f w i l l pr evai l on t he mer i t s ; ( 2) t he i nj unct i on i s nece s s ary t o pr eventi r r epar abl e harm ; ( 3) t he thr eat ened ha r m t o t he appl i cantout w ei ghs t he harm t he i nj unct i on m i ghtdo t o t he r es pondent s ; and (4) ent r y of the i nj unct i on i s cons i s t entw i t h t he publ i c i nt er es t . ” A m . L egion Pos t # 1 34 v . Mis s . G am ing Co m m 'n , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d 4 4 5 , 4 5 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ).

### 8

( 1) W he t he r t he t r i al c our t e r r e d i n gr ant i ng a pe r m anent i nj unc t i on, b e c a u se su b sta n tia l ev id e n c e d o e s n o t su p p o r t a fin d in g o f ir r e p a r a b le in ju r y . ¶ 1 5 . W e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e th a t th e c h a n c e llo r e rre d in fin d in g th a t G u n n a n d H a rris w o u ld
s uf f eri r r epar abl e i nj ur y i f

she di d not i s s ue an i nj unct i on. T he chanc el l orfound thathabi t at dest ruct i on an d dam age t o real p roperty w ou l d cause i rr eparable harm t o G un n an d H arr i s, if o w n e rsh ip is re s o lv e d in th e ir fa v o r. H o w e v e r, th e c h a n c e llo r’s fin d in g is c o u c h e d in l a ng ua ge tha ts ho w s a n i nt e ntt o gr a nta t e mpor a r y, n ota p e r mane nt , i nj un c t i on: “i f t he
s ubj ectl eas e w er e al l ow ed t o c ont i nue[ , ] then t he r eal i t y of i ti s t hatt he pr opos ed pathw ay
w oul d be i n pl ace and cons t ruct i on compl et e bef or e any otherl i t igat i on could be r es olved .” T h e c h a n c e llo r e x p re ss e d c o n c e rn th a t th e re so lu tio n o f G u n n ’s a n d H a rris’ s p ro p e rty rig h ts coul d be r ender ed meani ngl es s i f she f ai l ed t o i s s ue an i nj unct i on t o pre ventcons t ruct i on of t he pathw ay unt i l t hei rpr oper t y r i ght s w er e det erm i ned. A l l ow i ng cons t ruct i on of t he p athw ay to p roc ee d b efo re o w n ersh ip ri g h ts are d eterm ined co u ld resu ltin irrev ersible h arm t o G unn and H arr i s , shoul d i tbe det erm i ned t hatt hey ow n t he l and upon w hi ch the pathw ay is b u ilt. W e fin d n o e v id e n c e th a t th e c h a n c e llo r “ a b u se d [h e r] d isc re tio n , w a s m a n ife stly
w r ong, cl ear l y er r oneous [ , ] or appl i ed an err oneous l egal st andar d” i n fi ndi ng t hatG unn and H arr i s w oul d be i r r epar abl y i nj ur ed, par t i cul ar l y i n l i ghtof t he cha ncel l or ’ s rul i ng t o pr event
cons t ruct i on bef

or e ow ner s hi p of

the pr oper t y i s de t erm i ned. Thus, a l t hough w e f i nd no err or i n gr ant i ng an i nj unct i on, t he S t at e’ s cont ent i on t hati tw as err ort o gr anta per m anent i nj unct i on has m er i t . “Perm anent ” means “[ l ] ast i ng or meantt o l as ti ndef i ni t el y” or“[ n] ot expec t ed t o change i n s t atus , condi t i on, orpl ace [
. ] ” W ebs t er ’s I I New Col l ege D i ct i onar

y 819

### 9

( 2001)
. I n contr as t , “ t empora r y” m eans “ [ l ] as t i ng, us ed, ore nj oyed f ora l i m i t ed t i m e[
. ] ” Id
. a t 1 1 3 5 -3 6 . T h e re fo re , it w a s e rr o r t o g ra n t a p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n . ( 2) W het her t he t ri al court com m i t t ed l egal err or by grant i ng a perm anent i nj unct i on, becaus e an adequate rem edy at l aw i s avai l abl e. ¶16. D et erm i ni ng w hether an adequa t e r emedy at l aw i s avai l abl e i s a par t of det erm i ni ng
w hether“i r r epar abl e harm ” w i l l occuri f an i nj unct i on does noti s s ue. I f an ade quat e r emedy atlaw w ere ava i l abl e, G unn and H arr i s w oul d notbe harm ed i r r epar abl y i n t he abs ence of an i nj unct i on, beca us e the very purpos e of a r emedy atl aw i s t o compensa t e f ort he harm t he
co n stru cti o n w o u ld ca u se. In o ther w o rd s, if an ad eq u ate rem ed y at l aw ex ist ed , the h arm
w oul d be “r epar abl e” r athert han “i r r epar abl e. ” The chanc el l or ’ s f i ndi ng t hatG unn and H a rris w o u ld b e h a rm e d irre p a rab ly, th ere fore , co n tain e d a fin d in g th a t th e re w a s n o a d e q u a te
rem edy atl aw . A s dis cussed abo ve, w e canno tf i nd that t he chan cel l or “abused [he r] di s cr et i on, w as m ani f

es t l y w r ong, cl ear l y err oneous [ , ] orappl i ed an er r oneous l egal sta n d a rd ” in fin d in g th a t no ad e q u a te re m e d y at law w a s a v a ilab le, a lth o u g h it w a s e rro r to gr anta perm anenti nj unct i on f ort he s ame r eas ons appl i ed i n ¶15 ( supra ). ( 3) W het her t he t ri al c ourt e rroneous l y awarded a perm anent i nj unct i on wi t hout r ul i ng o n t he m e r i t s of t he unde r l yi ng a c t i on. ¶17. T he abs ence of

a de ci s i on on t he m er i t s precl ud es a chan cel l or f rom grant i ng a p e rm a n e n t in

ju n c tio n , b u t w o u ld n o t an d d id n o t p re c lu d e th e c o n tin u a n c e o f th e e q u itab le
r el i ef gr ant ed vi a a pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on, unt i l ow ner s hi p of t he pr oper t y i s det erm i ned. T he chancel l or err ed i n s t yl i ng t he di s pos i t i on as a perm anenti nj unct i on, beca us e a c our tm ay i s s ue a pe r m anenti nj unct i on onl y af t era “f ul l hear i ng on the m er i t s of t he cl ai m [
. ] ” A -1 P al let Co. v. Cit

y of Jacks on , 40 So. 3d 563, 569 ( M i s s . 2010)
. H ow ever , a “c our tm ay i s s ue

### 10

a pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on even though pl ai nt i f f’ s ri ghtt o re l i ef

st i l l i s uncer t ai n. ” M i s s . R . C i v. P . 6 5 (a) cm t. “[A ] p reli m inary injun cti o n . . . is an injun cti o n issue d to p rotec t th e p lai n ti ff f r om i r r epar abl e i nj ur y and t o pre s erve t he cour t ’ s pow ert o r endera meani ngf ul deci s i on on t he mer i t s . ” Id
. H er e, t he cha ncel l orenj oi ned cons t ruct i on of t he pathw ay “[ u ] n til ther e has b e e n a fin a l d e ter m in a tio n o f p ro p e rty o w n e rs h ip . ” ( E m phas i s added. ) T her ef or e, w e f i nd th a t th e c h a n c e llo r’s O rd e r a n d O p in io n in fa c t g ra n ted a p re lim in a ry in ju n c tio n , alb e it i ncorr ect l y s t

yl ed as a perm anenti nj unct i on. ¶18. T he l anguage of t he cha ncel l or ’ s O r der and O pini on v al i dat es a dec i s i on t o gr ant i nj unct i ve r el i ef

. T he cha ncel l orconcl uded herO r derand O pi ni on by s t at i ng: U n til th e re h a s b e e n a fin a l d e ter m in a tio n o f p ro p e rty o w n e rsh ip , this C our tf i nds t hatt he pr opos ed pathw ay cons t ruct i on shal l notbe bui l tw i t hout fi rs tkn ow i ng t o w ho m t he p ropert y belongs an d to w ho m cert ai n ri gh t s, pr i vi l eges , and dut i es ar e gi ven i n r el at i on t o t hatpr oper t y. T her ef or e, t he Pl ai nt i ff

s s houl d pr evai l on t he perm anenti nj unct i on u n til th e re is a b s o lu te c e rt a in ty o f t h e o w n e rs h ip ri g h ts o f t h e p a rt ie s . T he cha ncel l or ’ s r epea t ed us e of t he w or d “unt i l ” evi dence s a cl eari nt ent i on t hatan i nj unct i on be i n pl ace u n til a dec i s i on on t he mer i t s i s r eac hed – exe m pl i f yi ng t he conc ept
o f a p re lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n . T h u s, th e in

ju n c tio n g ra n te d w a s c o n d iti o n a l, an d n o t a f in a l, perm anentr es ol ut i on of t he ca s e. A s s uch, onl y a pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on w oul d l i e. ¶ 1 9 . T h e c h a n c e llo r a n a ly z e d th e n e c e ss a ry fa c to rs fo r g ra n tin g a n in ju n c tio n . A c o u rt is
r equi r ed onl y t o “ bal ance t he .
. . fa ct or s [ , ] ” nott o re s ol ve al l f ourf act or s i n one part y’ s f

avor o r th e o th e r, to a c h ie v e e q u ity a n d g ra n t a n in ju n c tio n . See A - 1 P al

let Co. , 40 So. 3d at569. T h e c h a n c e llo r firs t fo u n d th a t G u n n ’s a n d H a rris’ s p ro p e rty in ter e sts “ w ill b e irre p a ra b ly in ju re d if th e in ju n c tio n is n o t g ra n te d ” a n d “ if th e s u b je c t l e a s e w e re a llo w e d to c o n tin u e [,]

### 11

. . . the pr opos ed pathw ay w ould be i n place and c ons tr uct i on c om pl et e bef or e any o t her l i t igat i on could be r es olved . T h is f a c to r w e ig h s in th e P la in tif fs ’ f a v o r.” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) N ex t, the c h an ce ll o r stated tha t she w as “n o t pe rsua d ed that the D efe n d an ts w il l suffer h arm [ i f t he i nj unct i on i s i s s ued] ” and c oncl uded that“[ t ] hi s f act ordoes n ot w ei gh i n t he D e fe n d a n ts’ fa v o r.” T h e c h a n c e llo r th e n fo u n d th a t “it is in th e p u b lic’s in ter e st to re fra in f r om al t er i ng t he natur al habi t atof t he Subj ectL eas e ar ea u n til su c h tim e a s th e o w n e rs h ip of the Subj ect

Leas e ar ea and r el evant s ur r oundi ng ar eas is es t abl is hed
. T hi s f act orw ei ghs i n t he Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ f avor . ” ( E m phas i s added. ) Fi nal l y, t he cha ncel l oraddr es s ed w hethert he pl ai nt i f f i s l i kely t o pr evai l on t he mer i t s and f ound t hat“[ a] tpr es ent , t hi s f act orw ei ghs equ al l y to both part i es. ” T he chan cel l or concl ud ed, on balance af t er con si deri ng t he fact ors, t hatequi t y di ct at ed thatan i nj unct i on s houl d be gr ant ed enj oi ni ng cons t ruct i on of t he pathw ay “[ u ] n til th e re h a s b e e n a fin a l d e ter m in a tio n o f p ro p e rty o w n e rs h ip .” (E m p h a sis added. ) G i ven the uncert ai nt y of the ow ner s hi p of

the pr oper t y, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatt he chanc el l ora bus ed herdi s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng a n i nj unct i on, a l t hough s he err ed i n s t yl i ng i tas a p e rm a n e n t in

ju n c tio n . See sup ra , ¶¶ 15- 16.

CO NC L US I ON ¶20. W e f

i nd t hat t he i nj unct i on i s s ued i s es s ent i al l y a r eaf f i r m at i on of t he ea r l i er - gr ant ed pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on , i m pr oper l y s t yl ed as a perm anenti nj unct i on. W e r ever s e the ju d g m e n t g ra n tin g a p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n . W e re m a n d th is c a se to th e H in d s C o u n ty C hance r y C our tw i t h i ns t ruct i on t o cont i nue the pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on or i gi nal l y gr ant ed,
w hi ch has notbeen a ppeal ed orc ance l l ed. T he cha ncel l orm ay, w i t hi n herdi s cr et i on, ( 1) s t ay t he ac t i on “unt i l t her e i s abs ol ut e ce r t ai nt y of t he ow ner s hi p r i ght s of t he part i es ” or( 2)

### We a dvis e that Mis si ssippi Rul e of

Civi l Proce dure60(c ) provide s that , i f the 9 

### chance ll or transf

er s th is case to anothe r c ourt , the transf er wil l be com e e ff

ec ti ve t en days af te r s hee nt e r s theorde r . Fo r thetr ans f

e r orde r t o b e r e c on s i de r e d, theparty s e e king re cons ide rati on must

fil e a motion s ee king r ec onsi der ation prior to t he e xpir ation of

thete nday pe ri od, wi th no e xcepti ons. Mis s. R. Ci v. P. 60(c ).

12 t r a ns f e rthe a c t i on t o t he J a c ks on Coun t y Chan c e r y Cour t , i f s he c on c l ud e s tha t“i n t he interest of justi ce [, ] ” tran sfer is i n the b est i n terests of all pa rties a n d w ill res u ltin a m o re e ff ic ie n t r e s o lu tio n . See M is s . R . C iv . P . 8 2 (e ) ( p ro v id in g th a t “ in th e in te re s t o f j u s tic e [,]”
a courtm ay t r ans f

era cas e t hatw as fi l ed i n an appr opr i at e venue t o anothercour tw i t hi n t he sta te “ in w h ic h th e a c tio n m ig h t h a v e b e e n p ro p e rly filed ” ). In so d o in g , all rig h ts o f a ll 9 p a rt ie s w ill b e p ro te c te d , a s ju s tic e a n d e q u ity re q u ir e . ¶ 2 1 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, P . J J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS AND CH AND LER, J J . , CO NCU R. KI NG , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . P I E RC E , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . KI NG , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 2 2 . W ith a p p ro p ria te r e sp e c t fo r th e M a jo rity , I am c o m p e lled to d iss e n t fro m its u lti m a te
r es ol ut i on of

t hi s cas e. T he M aj or i t y cl ai m s t hatt he cha ncel l ordi d noti s s ue a pe r m anent i nj unct i on, but i n l anguage l es s t han art f ul , m er el y cont i nued the pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on by im p ro p e rly sty lin g it as a p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n . O n tha t ba sis , th e M a jo rity h o ld s th a t th is
c a s e s h o u l d b e r e ma n d e d wi t h i n s t ru c t i o n s t o c o n t i n u e t h e p r e l i mi n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . I ti s my bel i ef t hatt he pr operr eadi ng of t he r ecor d i s t hat ( 1) t he cha ncel l orhel d a hea r i ng and g ra n ted a p re lim in a ry in ju n c tio n ; (2 ) th e ch a n c e llo r h e ld a su b se q u e n t he a rin g o n the m e rits

### 13

o f G u n n ’s a n d H a rris’ s re q u e st fo r a p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n ; (3 ) th e c h a n c e llo r in fe re n tially fo u n d th a t G u n n a n d H a rris h a d fa iled to p re se n t su ffic ien t e v id e n c e to e sta b lish th e ir ent i t l ementt o a per m anenti nj unct i on; and ( 4) t he cha ncel l orerr ed i n gr ant i ng a perm anent i nj unct i on. U ndert hi s r eadi ng, t he onl y pr operact i on f ort his C our ti s t o di s s ol ve the p e rm a n e n t in

ju n c tio n . ¶ 2 3 . G u n n a n d H a rris re q u e ste d th a t th e c h a n c e llo r p re lim in a rily a n d p e rm a n e n tly e n jo in t he Secr et ary of

St at e and O cea n Spr i ngs f r om t aki ng any ac t i on underw hatw as cl ai m ed b y th e S e c re ta ry o f S ta te a n d th e C ity o f O c e a n S p ri n g s to b e a le a s e o f p u b lic tid e la n d s . Fol l ow i ng a hear i ng, the chanc el l orgr ant ed t he pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on on A pr i l 8, 2010, and
s chedul ed a he ar i ng on t he r eques tf ora perm anenti nj unct i on f orA pr i l 13 and 14, 2010. ¶24. A s t he m ovant s , G unn and H arr i s w er e r es pons i bl e f or pl aci ng bef

or e t he cha ncel l or s uf f i ci entevi dence of

t hei re nt i t l ementt o a pe r m anenti nj unct i on. Thi s Courtha s he l d t hat fa c ts to w a rr a n t a n in

ju n c tio n m u s t b e e s ta b lis h e d b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e . S ta te
v. M yers , 244 M i s s . 778, 782, 146 So. 2d 334, 335 ( 1962) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T hus , G unn a n d H a rris w e re req u ire d to p ro v e tha t th e fac ts m o re li k e ly tha n n o t su p p o rte d the ir c laim th a t th e le a s e is in v a lid
. D il l v. S outher n Far m B ure au L i f e I ns. Co. , 797 So. 2d 858, 867 (¶ 2 7 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 1 ). ¶2 5. Fol l ow i ng t he pr e s e nt a t i on of e vi de nc e by t he pa r t i e s , t he c ha nc e l l ora na l yz e d t he evi dence pr es ent ed t o he r , a nd a ddr es s ed t he f our - f act ort es tw hi ch i s a ppl i ed t o det erm i ne
w h e th e r to g ra n t a p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n . T h o se fo u r fa c to rs w h ich a re to b e u se d in det erm i ni ng w hethert o i s s ue a pe r m anenti nj unct i on ar e: ( 1) a s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood t hat t he pl ai nt i f

f w i l l pre vai l on t he mer i t s ; ( 2) i r r epar abl e i nj ur y t o t he pl ai nt i f f ; ( 3) t he harm an

### 14

in ju n c tio n w o u ld c a u s e th e d e fe n d a n t; a n d (4 ) p u b lic in te r e s t. 

### Pu nzo v. Ja ckso n C ou nty , 861 So. 2d 340, 350 (¶41) ( Mis s. 2003) ( ci ting Elect ronic Dat a Sys. Cor

p. v . Mi ss. Div. of Med icaid, 853 So. 2d 1192, 1207- 08 (¶49) (Mi ss . 2003)
. ¶26. T he pr i m ary i ssue t o be res ol ved i n a cons i der at i on of t he m er i t s of t he cl ai m s of G unn and H arr i s i s t he ow ner s hi p of t he di s put ed pr opert y. In ad dr es s i ng t hati s s ue, t he chanc el l ors t at ed: “Evi dence i n t hi s m at t eras s er t s t hatt he Pr opos ed Pr oj ectm ay orm ay not be l ocat ed w i t hi n t i del and. Fur t herevi dence cont ends t hatt he Pl ai nt i f f s m ay orm ay nothave litto ra l rig h ts w ith in th e P ro p o se d P rojec t a re a . . . . A t p re se n t, th is fa c to r w e ig h s in e q u a lly t o bot h par t i es . ” C l ear l y, t he cha ncel l orcons i der ed t hi s i s s ue and det erm i ned thats he l acke d
su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to re so lv e it i n fa v o r o f G u n n a n d H a rris. T h e c h a n c e llo r sp e c ifica lly h e ld t hatt he evi dence of

ow ner s hi p di d notpr eponder at e i n f avororei t herpar t y. B eca us e G unn and H arr i s f

ai l ed t o m eett hei rr equi s i t e bur den of p roof, they f

ai l ed t o es t abl i s h any
e n title m e n t to re lie f. T h u s , th e c h a n c e llo r e rr e d in g ra n tin g a p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n . ¶2 7 . T h e M a

jo rity h o ld s tha t the injun cti o n i s m ist ak en ly sty led a s p e rm a n e n t an d is
es s ent i al l y a r eaf

f i r m at i on of

the ear l i er - gr ant ed pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on. T he M aj or i t y hol ds that this ap p ea l sho u ld b e re m an d ed w ith an instruction to co n ti n u e the p reli m inary i nj unct i on. I di s agr ee. A pre l i m i nary i nj unct i on re m ai ns i n pl ace onl y unt i l t he compl et i on o f a tr ia l o n th e m e r its
. See M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re R u le 6 5 ; 1 1 W rig h t & M ille r, Federal P ract i ce an d P rocedu re , C i vi l § 2947 ( 1973)
. T he cha ncel l orconduct ed a hear i ng on t he mer i t s and f ound t hatG unn and H arr i s had f ai l ed t o pr es ents uf

f i ci ent
e v id e n c e to e s ta b lis h th e ir e n tit lem e n t to a p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n . I d o n o t d o u b t th a t th is C ou rtm ay , b y a m ere m aj ori t y v ote, m ake an y d i sposi t i on of this case t hat i tcho oses.

### 15

H ow eve r , I a m aw a r e of no l e ga l ba s i s t ha ta l l ows thi s Cour tt o i gn or e t ha tt he c ha ncel l or hel d a he ar i ng on t he m er i t s a nd de t erm i ned t hatG unn a nd H arr i s ha d f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hat t hey w er e ent i t l ed t o per m anent i nj unct i ve r el i ef
. I w oul d t her ef

or e hol d t hatt he cha ncel l or err ed i n gra nt i ng a per m anenti nj unct i on, and the perm anenti nj unct i on s houl d be di s s ol ved.