Opinion ID: 1656409
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maranatha Faith Center, Inc. v. Colonial Trust Co.

Text: ¶ 14. The Plaintiffs cite a single authority in their brief, Maranatha, so a discussion of that case is an appropriate starting point. In February 2003, the Chancery Court of Lowndes County entered a final judgment against a debtor, Maranatha, and in favor of its creditor, Colonial Trust, for $876,753.08. Maranatha, 904 So.2d at 1005. After the judgment went unsatisfied for several months, Colonial Trust levied execution on Maranatha's chose in action against another company, styled Maranatha Faith Center, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp. [6] Id. Maranatha moved to quash the writ and stay the execution, but the trial court denied these motions. Id. ¶ 15. The issue before this Court, one of first impression, was [w]hether an action for unliquidated damages can be executed upon by a judgment creditor and subsequently sold at public auction, possibly to a third party. Id. Maranatha argued that a writ of execution could only be applied to the proceeds of a lawsuit, not to the lawsuit itself. Id. at 1006. Additionally, Maranatha claimed that a writ of execution could not be applied to intangible property, like a pending lawsuit. Id. ¶ 16. The Court looked to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-7-7 for guidance, which provides, in part, [a]ny chose in action or any interest therein, after suit has been filed thereon, may be sold or assigned the same as other property .... Id. (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-7 (Rev.2004) (emphasis in original)). We concluded the statute was reasonably interpreted as meaning a chose in action may be treated the same as other personal property. Maranatha, 904 So.2d at 1007. ¶ 17. The Court also considered Section 13-3-135, which provides, [t]he purchaser of any chose in action, stock, share, interest, judgment, or decree of the defendant, sold under execution or attachment, shall become the owner thereof, in the same manner as if it had been regularly assigned to him by the defendant. Id. (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 13-3-135 (Rev. 2002) (emphasis in original)). We found that [i]mplicit in § 13-3-135 is that a chose in action may be sold under execution. Maranatha, 904 So.2d at 1007. ¶ 18. In dicta, we noted that all three parties involved in the case had an interest in purchasing the chose in action. Id. at 1009. Specifically, Kerr McGee would be interested in buying the suit against it. Second, Maranatha would be interested in reacquiring the suit based on the fact that it [believed] it [was] worth much more [than] the judgment against it which [was then] being executed. Third, Colonial Trust could buy the suit itself. Id. at 1010 n. 9. ¶ 19. In summarizing why a chose in action could be sold under execution, we noted: [A chose in action] is property. It is capable of being transferred. It is capable of being converted into a judgment which is subject to execution. It is an asset of the judgment debtor, and why should not his assets, whatever their nature, be taken to satisfy a judgment? We cannot see any logical reason why such property should not be levied on. Id. at 1009 (quoting Johnson v. Dahlquist, 130 Wash. 29, 225 P. 817, 818 (1924)). We held that a chose in action is subject to a writ of execution. Colonial Trust, as judgment creditor, could levy upon Maranatha's chose in action against Kerr-McGee with such levy not to exceed the amount to which Colonial is now entitled pursuant to the chancery court judgment heretofore rendered in its favor against Maranatha. Maranatha, 904 So.2d at 1010.