Case Name: Milton D. CONCANNON, M.D., Appellant, v. Donis REYNOLDS, Appellee
Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2003-09-16
Citations: 878 So. 2d 107
Docket Number: No. 2002-CA-00810-COA
Parties: Milton D. CONCANNON, M.D., Appellant, v. Donis REYNOLDS, Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, P.J., BRIDGES, IRVING, and MYERS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 878
Pages: 107–111

Head Matter:
Milton D. CONCANNON, M.D., Appellant, v. Donis REYNOLDS, Appellee.
No. 2002-CA-00810-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
Sept. 16, 2003.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 2003.
Certiorari Denied July 22, 2004.
T. Patrick Welch, Mccomb, attorney for appellant.
Mack T. Brabham, Mccomb, attorney for appellee.
Before KING, P.J., BRIDGES, IRVING, and MYERS, JJ.

Opinion:
MYERS, J.,
for the Court.
¶ 1. In January of 1998, Dr. Milton D. Concannon treated Sandra Rachel for chest pains. Rachel was not happy with Concannon's communication style, and her sister, Donis Reynolds, wrote a letter to Concannon and to Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center in which she complained of Concannon's "bedside manner."
¶2. Concannon went to an attorney. The attorney wrote a letter to Reynolds, informing her that Concannon intended to sue her for defamation if she did not write letters of apology to everyone who received Reynolds' original letter. Reynolds wrote the apology, but Concannon did not think it was a sincere apology, so he proceeded with his suit. Reynolds counterclaimed for breach of contract.
¶ 3. Four years later, in February 2002, a jury heard the case. The trial judge issued a directed verdict against Concan-non on his defamation claim, and the jury returned a verdict for Reynolds for breach of contract. The jury awarded her $2,500 actual damages, and $2,500 punitive damages. Before trial, both parties had stipulated the issue of attorney fees was reserved depending on the jury verdict, with the court to set the amount, if any, of the fees.
¶ 4. On March 5, 2002, Reynolds submitted a motion to the court for attorney fees along with an affidavit of her attorney with an attached itemized time sheet. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on March 25. At the end of the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement.
¶ 5. On April 22, the trial court issued its ruling, awarding attorney fees in the amount of $20,758.75. Concannon appeals to this Court, asking us to decide:
WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF THE ATTORNEY'S FEES AWARDED IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
Legal Analysis
¶ 6. Concannon makes a very convincing argument, however, it is moot. After the judge made his ruling on the attorney's fees, the correct step would have been to give the trial court a chance to correct its alleged mistake. This could have been done by moving for an amended finding under Rule 52 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, or for a new trial under Rule 59, or relief from the judgment under Rule 60. Instead, the issue was appealed directly to us.
¶ 7. The dissent is correct that Rule 52(b) provides for actions tried by the court without a jury to be directly appealed when the sufficiency of the evidence is in question. However, this action was tried by a jury. The issue of the amount of attorney's fees was left to the judge to decide (through stipulation of the parties).
¶ 8. As such, we are procedurally barred from considering the issue. Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So.2d 850, 866 (Miss.1994); Sumrall Church of Lord Jesus Christ v. Johnson, 757 So.2d 311, 316(¶ 12) (Miss.Ct. App.2000). We therefore affirm the trial court's order.
¶ 9. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PUCE COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. STATUTORY DAMAGES AND INTEREST ARE AWARDED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR. GRIFFIS, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY MCMILLIN, C.J., AND SOUTHWICK, P.J.
. Specifically, that Concannon's demand for an apology was an offer and Reynolds' letter of apology was an acceptance. Concannon's suing despite the apology was a "bad faith" breach of that contract.