### SeeM.R .A.P . 4; se e al so M.R. C.P. 6( a)
. 1 I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 0 3 9 3 - CO A W I LLI AM C. RO DW ELL AP P EL LA NT
v. M I CHAE L C HRI S M AN APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 12/ 2012 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. L I S A P
. DODS ON CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: ERI C D
. W OO TEN AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : S T E P HE N W AL KE R B UR RO W NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY T R IA L C O U R T D IS P O S IT IO N : G R A N T E D S U M M A R Y JU D G M E N T IN FAV OR OF TH E PLAI NTI FF / APPELLEE D I SPO SI T I O N : A PPE A L D I SM I SSE D - 10/ 21/ 2014 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 I R V I N G , P . J. , B A R N E S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. CAR LTON, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. T h e H arrison C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rtgran ted M icha el C h ri sm an ’s m o ti o n for su m m ary jud g m en t i n an a cti o n inv o lving a fo rec losu re s ale an d d efa u lto n the p ay m en t of p rom issory not e s . W i l l i a m R od w e l l a r gu e s tha tthe c i r c ui tc ou r te rr e d i n g r a nt i ng s umm a ry j ud gment and al s o err ed i n denyi ng R odw el l ’ s m ot i on f orr econ si derat i on. W e di s m i s s f orl ack of ju risd ictio n d u e to R o d w e ll’s fa ilu re to file a tim e ly n o tice o f a p p e a l. 1 FACTS ¶ 2
. M ik e C h rism a n , W ill iam R o d w e ll, a n d C h a rle s T o m a se llo fo rm e d C A L In v e stm e n ts

### 2

L L C on February 2, 1998. T he m em bers of C A L f or m ed s ever al otherr el at ed compani es
overthe f

ol l ow i ng tw o year s bef or e they t erm i nat ed the bus i nes s r el at i ons hi ps thr ough a p u rc h a se -a n d -sa le a g re e m e n t (P S A ) d a ted J a n u a ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 . C h rism a n s o ld h is o w n e rsh ip in ter e st in C A L In v e stm e n ts to R o d w e ll an d T o m a se llo . R o d w e ll an d T o m a se llo p a id C hr i s man $6 0, 00 0 i n c a s h a nd a l s o e xe c ut e d a p r omi s s ory no t e f or$ 27 3, 62 2, r equi r i ng
m onthl y paym ent s fort en year s , w i th a fi nal bal l oon paymentdue J anuary 21, 2010. I n M ay 2 0 0 8 , Ro d we l l a n d T o ma s e l l o d e f a u l t e d o n th e n o t e , o wi n g a b a l a n c e o f $ 1 5 6 , 8 6 4
. 5 7 . On A pr i l 8, 20 08 , Rodw e l l a nd Tomas e l l o, on be ha l f of CA L I nv e s t ment s , e xe c ut e d a s e cond
n o t e t o Ch r i s ma n f

o r$ 5 0 , 0 0 0
. As s e c u r i ty f o rt h e p r o mi s s o ry n o t e s , o n M a y 6 , 2 0 0 8 , CA L I n v e s t me n te x e c u t e d g u a r a n t e e s t o Ch r i s ma n f o ra l l l i a b i l i t i e s a n d o th e ri n d e b t e d n e s s o f CA L I nves t m ent s . A s f

ur thers ecur i ty f

orthe pr om i s s ory not es , CA L I nves t m ents gr ant ed C h ri s m a n a d e e d o f t ru s t in c e rt a in re a l p ro p e rt y lo c a te d in G u lf p o rt , M is s is s ip p i. ¶3. C A L , R odw el l , and T om as el l o def aul t ed on thei r payment s t o C hr i s m an. O n M ar ch 2 4 , 2 0 1 0 , C h rism a n se n t a d e m a n d le tter to C A L In v e stm e n ts, sta tin g th a t th e y w e re in def aul ton thei rpayment s and thati f ful l p aym ent of

the amountdue w as notr ece i ved by A p ri l 2 4 , 2 0 1 0 , C h ri s tm a n w o u ld fo re c lo s e o n th e re a l p ro p e rt y . ¶4. O n A ugus t 24, 2010, af t er pos t i ng and publ i cat i on of the N ot i ce f or Sal e, the Trus t ee f or ecl os ed on the s ubj ectr eal pr operty. Chri s m an of f er ed the hi ghes tbi d atthe f or ecl os ur e, obt ai ni ng the r eal pr operty f or$8, 000. O n February 4, 2011, C hr i s m an then f i l ed s ui tf ort he
re m a in d e r o f t h e m o n e y o w e d h im , a s w e ll a s a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d c o s ts . ¶5. O n A pr i l 26 , 2011, C hr i s m an f i l ed hi s fi r s tam ended compl ai nt . B etw een J une 10, 20 11 , and Jul y 25 , 201 1, C hri sm an fi l ed his appli cat i on f or entri es of

defa u ltag ainst

### 3

R odw el l , CA L, a nd Tomas e l l o. The c i r c ui tc l e r k f i l e d i t s e ntry of

d e f a ul to n a l l t hr ee defend ants . ¶6. O n J ul y 25 , 2 01 1, E ri c W oo t en, co un sel for R od w el l and Tom as el l o, cont act ed C hr i s m an t o inf

orm him that, aft er r ecei ving C hri sm an’s com pl ai nt , he i nf orm ed R odw el l and T om as el l o of

a pot ent i al conf

l i ctof i nt er es t , a nd thathe w oul d be unabl e t o r epr es entt hem i n the mat t er . W oot en as s um ed thatR odw el l and To m ase l l o w oul d cont actthei rother
co u n sel t o rep rese n t th em , b u t R o d w ell a n d T o m ase ll o fail ed to u n d erstan d W o o ten’s i ns truct i ons o n t he mat t er , and neve rr et ai ned di f f er entcouns el
. U pon hear i ng of t he
m isu n d e rs ta n d in g , C h rism a n a g re e d to w a iv e th e c o n flict o f in ter e st a n d a llo w W o o ten to
re p re se n t R o d w e ll an d T o m a se llo , b u t re fu se d to w ith d ra w h is m o tio n s fo r d e fa u lt. ¶7. O n J ul y 29, 2011, C A L , R odw el l , and T om as el l o obj ect ed t o C hr i s m an’ s m ot i on f or defaul tand dis pu t ed the tri al co urt ’s subj ect -m at t er j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear C hri sm an’s cl ai m s. C A L , R o d w e ll, a n d T o m a se llo a lso filed a m o tio n to tra n sfe r th e c a se to c h a n c e ry c o u rt. A f t erf i l i ng the mot i on, C A L , R odw el l , and Tom as el l o asser tthatcouns el f orboth par t i es di s cus s ed C hr i s m an’ s f ai l ur e t o have the pr operty appr ai s ed pr i ort o the f orecl osur e of

t he d e e d o f tru st. O n M a rc h 1 , 2 0 1 2 , C h rism a n filed a n o tice o f h e a rin g o n th e m o tio n fo r d e fa u lt
a n d o n M a rc h 9 , 2 0 1 2 , C h rism a n file d a s u p p lem e n tal m o tio n fo r a d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t, o r in the al t ernat i ve, s um m ary j udgm ent . C A L , R odw el l , and Tom as el l o f i l ed a mot i on obj ect i ng to C h ri s m a n ’s m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶8
. O n A p ri l 20 , 2 0 1 2 , the c ir cu itco u rth ea rd arg u m en ts on the fo ll o w ing : ( 1 ) C h ri sm an ’s
s uppl ement al m ot i on f

ora def aul tj udgm ent , ori n the al t ernat i ve, s um m ary j udgm ent ; and

### CAL, Rodwell , and Toma se ll o spe ci fi ca lly re ques te d that t he c ircui t c ourt

grant 2 

### the m tim e t o conduc t di sc over y. 4 ( 2) C A L , R odw el l , and T om as el l o’ s m ot i on t o s etas i de def aul tand mot i on f

ordi s covery. 2 T he ci r cui tcourtgr ant ed part i al s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof C hr i s m an, butf

ound genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

actt o exi s t , i ncl udi ng: the val ue of re al prope r ty ati s s ue atthe dat e of t he f or ecl os ur e; the manneri n w hi ch C hr i s m an det erm i ned the pr i ce pai d f orthe s ubj ectr eal pr operty atthe f

or ecl os ur e sa l e; and the t ot al amount of i ndebt ednes s ow ed t o C hr i s m an by C A L , Tomas e l l o, a nd Rodwel l
. The c i r c ui tc ou r ta l s o gr a nt e d CA L, Tomas e l l o, and R odw el l ’ s r eques tfordi s covery, and al l ow ed bot h par t i es t o conductdi s covery l i m i t ed t o t he
re m a in in g is s u e s . ¶9. O n M ay 2, 2012, W oot en i nf or m ed C hr i s m an of C A L and T om as el l o’ s deci s i on not to p u rs u e th e ird e fe n s e s in th e a c tio n , a n d a tta c h e d a p ro p o s e d c o n s e n t ju d g m e n t. ¶ 1 0
. O n M a y 2 2 , 2 0 1 2 , R o d w e ll fil e d a m o tio n fo r a p ro tec tiv e o rd e r, req u e stin g th e c irc u it t o r es tr i ctthe di s covery C hri sman pr opounded upon R odw el l t o the thr ee a r eas of l i m i t ed d isc o v e ry a llo w e d b y the circ u it co u rt. C h rism a n th e n filed a m o tio n to c o m p e l R o d w e ll t o fu lly a n d c o m p lete ly a n sw e r re q u e sts fo r a d m iss io n s, o r in th e a lte rn a tiv e , d e e m c e rta in
re q u e s ts a d m itte d
. ¶11. O n M ay 28, 2012, the tr i al courtent er ed an or ders ett i ng a s i de the cl erk’ s entr i es of def aul tagai ns tC A L , R odw el l , and Tom as el l o. H ow ever , the ci r cui tc our the l d thati ti ndeed p o ssessed j uri sdi ct i on ov er the m att er, si n ce C h ri sm an ’s claim s o ri g inated o n tw o p rom issory not es f ordamages , w hi ch ar e “a tl aw ” cl ai m s and “do nots ound excl us i vel y i n equi ty. ” ¶12. O n J une 28, 2012, R odw el l f i l ed a m ot i on t o c om pel r es pons es t o di s covery a nd f or

### 5

a cont i nuance , r eques t i ng the ci r cui tcourtt o or derC hri s m an t o f ul l y r es pond t o t he i nt err ogat or i es a nd doc um entr eques t s pr opounded on hi m by R odw el l and t o cont i nue the tr ia l, w h ic h th e c ir c u it c o u rt s e t f o r S e p te m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 2
. ¶13. O n J ul y 2, 2012, C hr i s m an f i l ed a s econd m ot i on f

or s um m ary j udgm ent , r eques t i ng the ci r cui tcourtt o gra ntsumm ary j udgm enti n f avorof C hr i s m an f

orthe bal ance due under the pr om i s s ory not es af t ergi vi ng R odw el l cr edi tf orthe val ue pl ace d on the f or ecl os ed r eal p ro p e rt y b y R o d w e ll’ s a p p ra is e r. ¶14. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed C hr i s m an’ s s econd mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , f i ndi ng that underM i s s i s s i ppi l aw , no obl i gat i on exi s t ed f orC hr i s m an t o det erm i ne t he val ue of the r eal p ro p e rty p rio r to th e fo re c lo su re sa le. T h e c irc u it c o u rt fu rth e r h e ld th a t M iss iss ip p i law o n ly
r equi r ed C hr i s m an t o gi ve R odw el l cr edi tf orthe f ai rv al ue of the pr operty agai ns tt he bal ance due underthei rpr om i s s ory not es , w hi ch C hr i s m an di d thr ough the r educe d demand f orj udgm enti n hi s s econd m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent . T he ci r cui tcourtf ound w hether th e sa les p ric e a t th e fo re c lo su re w a s lo w e r th a n th e p ro p e rty ’s f a ir v a lu e to b e irre lev a n t,
a n d o rd e re d th a t R o d w e ll p a y C h rism a n $ 3 0 8 ,8 8 0 .8 5 , w ith p o st-ju d g m e n t in ter e st a t th e ra te of s even pe r centperannum on t he pr i nci pal s um s ow ed on ea ch not e f r om July 30 , 2012, unt i l pai d i n ful l , att orney’ s f ees of $64, 720. 21, and cos t s and expe ns es of $784. 64. T he ci r cui tcourtdeni ed R odw el l ’ s m ot i on f ora p rot ect i ve or derand mot i on t o compel , and C hr i s m an’ s m ot i on t o c om pel , f i ndi ng thes e mot i ons t o be moot
. O n Sept ember13, 2012, the c ir cu itco u rten tered it s fi n al ord er a n d jud g m en t. O n O ctob er 1 5 , 2 0 1 2 , the tri al co u rt
e n te re d a c o n s e n t, f

in a l ju d g m e n t a g a in s t C A L a n d T o m a s e llo
. ¶15. R odw el l f

i l ed a mot i on t o r econs i der , as ser t i ng thatcert ai n fac tual f i ndi ngs i n the

### 6

or derand j udgm entf

ai l ed t o acc ur at el y r ef

l ectthe r ecord. O n Januar y 28, 2013, the tr i al
courtdeni ed R odw el l ’ s m ot i on f orr econs i der at i on o f t he Sept ember13, 2012 or derand j udgm ent , as w el l as t he f i nal j udgm enten t er ed thats ame day. T he tr i al court ’ s or der denyi ng the mot i on f

orr econs i der at i on w as dat ed and f i l ed J anuary 28, 2013. ¶16. O n F ebruary 28, 2013, R odw el l f i l ed a not i ce of

appea l f r om the tr i al court ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on f

orr econs i der at i on. T he no t i ce of appea l w as dat ed and f i l ed February 28, 2013. T hi s appea l f

ol l ow ed. O n M ar ch 20, 2013, C hr i s m an f i l ed a mot i on t o docketand di s m i s s R odw el l ’ s appea l as unt i m el y fi l ed, ass ert i ng thatR odw el l f i l ed hi s not i ce of

appea l thi r ty- one days af

t erthe tr i al court ’ s deni al of R odw el l ’ s post - tr i al m ot i on. T hatm ot i on w as deni ed b y the M i s s i s s i pp i Su pr e me Cou r ti n a n or de rd a t e d A pr i l 2 4, 2 01 3, a nd the appea l
w a s s u b se q u e n tly a ss ig n e d to th is C o u rt. ¶17. O n a ppeal , Rodw el l a s s ert s s ever al i s s ues be f or e thi s Courtf

orr evi ew : ( 1) w hether the tr i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng C hr i s m an’ s m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , and i n f i ndi ng th e re w e re n o m a ter ial fa c ts in d isp u te a n d th a t C h rism a n w a s e n tit led to su m m a ry ju d g m e n t; (2) w h ethe r th e tri al co u rterred in fi n d ing that itp o sses sed jurisdicti o n to h ea r C h ri sm an ’s
c laim ; (3 ) w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y d e n y in g R o d w e ll’s M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P roc ed u re 56 (f) m o ti o n for ad d it ion al t im e to co n d u ct disco v ery ; (4) w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt
err ed by r ef

us i ng t o compel C hr i s m an t o r es pond t o R odw el l ’ s di s covery r eques t s ; ( 5)
w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed by notal l ow i ng a j ury t o deci de w hetherC hr i s m an w as ent i t l ed to a d e fic ien c y jud g m e n t ag a in st R o d w e ll in eq u ity ; (6 ) w h e th e r th e tri a l co u rt err e d in fi n d ing C h ri sm an co n d u cted the fo rec losu re at i ssu e in a co m m erc ial ly rea so n ab le m an n er; ( 7) w hetherthe tr i al c our te r r ed i n de nyi ng Rodw el l ’ s m ot i on f orr econs i der at i on and rul i ng

### See a lso M.R. C.P. 6(a). 3 

### 7 on t he m er i t s of thr ee m ot i ons i tdeni ed or e t enus as moot ; and ( 8) al t ernat i vel y, i f C hr i s m an is en ti tl ed to a d eficien cy jud g m en t aga inst R o d w ell , w h ich is de n ied, w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt
err ed in i t s cal culat i on of the am ou nt due C hri sm an an d it s cal culat i on of at t orneys’ f ees. ¶ 1 8
. W e f

i n d d i s p o s i t i v e th a tR o d we l l f i l e d h i s n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l u n t i me l y , a n d th e r e f o r e we d e c lin e to a d d re s s th e re m a in in g a s s ig n m e n ts o f e rr o r r a is e d
. DI S CU S S I ON ¶1 9
. W ith re sp e c t to th e n o tice o f a p p e a l, w e m u st f irst a d d ress w h ethe r th is C o u rt p o ss e ss e s ju risd ictio n to h e a r R o d w e ll’s a p p e a l. C h ri s m a n a rg u e s th a t R o d w e ll fil e d h is not i ce of app eal thi r ty- one days af t erthe tr i al court ’ s deni al of R odw el l ’ s m ot i on f

or
r econs i der at i on. T he r ecor d r ef l ect s thaton J anuary 28, 2013, the tr i al courtdeni ed R odw el l ’ s m ot i on f

orr econs i der at i on. O n February 28, 2013, R od w el l the n f i l ed a not i ce of appea l f r om the tr i al cour t ’s Januar y 28, 2012 deni al of R odw el l ’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der the tr i al court ’ s pr evi ous Sept em ber13, 2012 orde rand j udgm ent , as w el l as the f i nal ju d g m e n t en ter e d th a t sa m e d a y . O u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd re fle c ts R o d w e ll i n d e e d filed h is not i ce of appea l thi r ty- one days af t erthe tr i al courtden i ed his m ot i on f orr econs i der at i on,
a n d th e re fo re , R o d w e ll f ile d a n u n tim e ly n o tic e o f a p p e a l. ¶20. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 4 s t at es that a not i ce of appea l i s t o be f i l ed
w i thi n thi r ty d a ys of

the j ud gmen torf

r om t he de ni a l of

c e r t a i n po s t - tr i a l mot i on s . M . R. A
. P. 4 (a )(d ) & (e ). G e n e ra lly , an a p p e a l sh a ll b e d ism iss e d u n les s th e n o tice o f a p p e a l is tim e ly

3

### Per Mis si ss ippiRuleof Appe ll at e Proce dure4, a ft er thetri alcourt

denie d his m oti on 4 

### for reco nsid erationonJanu ary 2 8, 2 01 3, Ro dw ell possessedthirty d ays to app eal the circu it court' s de ci sion. M.R .A.P. 4(a). Sinc e Rodwe llfi le d his noti ceof a ppea l on February 28, 2013, hefi le d thenoti ceouts idethethirty-day timelimi t s et forth in Ru le 4 (a). Although Ro dw e l lf

i l e d h i s no t i c e of

a pp e a lon e day o ut s i deof thethirty- day ti m e l i m i t , and we re cogni zethat “ [t ] he tim e l im it s for pe rf ec ting an a

ppea l ar e stri ctly enf

orc ed, and fi ling the noti ceeve n one day latere quires dis mi ss alof the a ction. ” Red mo nd v. Miss. D ep't of Corr ., 910 So. 2d 1211, 1212 (¶4) ( Mis s. Ct. App. 2005) (c iting Tandy Elecs. Inc . v . Fletche r , 554 So. 2d 308, 310-11 (Mi ss . 1989))
. Therec ord cont ains no motion by Rodwe llre ques ting an ext ens ion of

timeto f il e the a ppea l or an order g rantin g an exte nsi on of tim e t o fi lethe appe alaf te r the tri alcourt’ s d ismissal of Rodwe ll ’s motion t o re cons ide r. Conse quently, Ro dw ell filed anuntimely ap peal. See P enn v. Sta te , 90 9 S o. 2 d 1 3 5 , 13 6 (¶6 ) (Miss. C t. Ap p. 2 00 5). 8 fi le d p u rs u a n t to R u le 4 o r 5 . M .R .A .P . 2 (a )( 1 ). S e e H u n t v. S ta te , 11 So. 3d 764, 766 ( ¶5) 4 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ). ¶2 1. A s a r e s ul t , thi s Courtp os s e s s e s n o j ur i s di ct i on t o heart he i ns t antappea l , and R odw el l ' s appea l s houl d be di s m i s s ed pur s uan tt o R ul e 2 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re . S e e B y rdv . B ilo x i R eg 'l Me d . C tr . , 722 So
. 2d 16 6, 17 0 (¶14 ) ( M i ss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). W e fin d th a t th e iss u e o f ju risd ictio n is d isp o sitiv e ; h e n c e , this C o u rt w ill
n o t a d d re s s th e r e m a in in g a s s ig n m e n ts o f e rr o r r a is e d h e re in
. S e e E dm o n d v. S ta te , 991 So. 2 d 5 8 8 , 5 9 0 (¶ 6 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶ 2 2
. THI S APP EAL I S DI S M I S S ED FOR LAC K O F J URI S DI CTI ON . ALL CO S TS OF THI S APP EAL ARE ASS ES S ED TO TH E APP ELLANT. L E E , C . J. , G R IF F IS, P . J. , B A R N E S , ISH E E , R O B E R T S , M A X W E L L , F A IR AND J AM ES , JJ . , CO NCU R. I RVI NG , P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.