Opinion ID: 1596666
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the chancellor erred in denying summary judgment for Fidelity.

Text: ¶ 12. The parties dispute whether the issue of summary judgment is ripe for appeal. McKnight argues that this Court should not address the issue because the chancellor never ruled on Fidelity's motion for summary judgment. Fidelity, on the other hand, points out that twice during the hearing, the chancellor stated that Fidelity's motion for summary judgment was before her. ¶ 13. Although the chancellor twice mentioned Fidelity's motion for summary judgment at the hearing, she never ruled on that issue. At the beginning of the hearing, the chancellor noted that McKnight's motion to dismiss and Fidelity's motion for summary judgment were before her. She then said [l]et us begin with ... [McKnight's] Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions. From that point on, the motion for summary judgment was not addressed. The chancellor labeled her final order an Order on [McKnight's] Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions. In the order, she stated that oral arguments had been heard on McKnight's motion to dismiss. The order never references summary judgment. ¶ 14. This Court does not consider matters that have not been decided by the trial court. Bryant Const. Co., Inc. v. Cook Constr. Co., Inc., 518 So.2d 625, 632 (Miss.1987) (citing Educ. Placement Servs. v. Wilson, 487 So.2d 1316, 1320 (Miss. 1986)). Because the chancellor never decided the merits of Fidelity's motion for summary judgment, we do not address this issue on appeal.