Opinion ID: 2534763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the trial court had the authority to order the parties to conduct a hearing outside the chancery court district in which the matter was filed and to which the special chancellor was appointed.

Text: ¶ 17. CMI argues that the special chancellor did not have authority to conduct a hearing outside the chancery district in which the matter was filed, and that the matter should be heard in Greene County, Mississippi, not Jackson, Mississippi. In support of its position, CMI cites Adams v. Kyzer, 61 Miss. 407 (1883). ¶ 18. In Adams, notice was served on the complainants that a motion to dissolve an injunction, in a cause pending in the tenth judicial district, would be heard before the chancellor of the tenth judicial district, in Jackson, which, at the time, was in the ninth judicial district. Adams, 61 Miss. 407. The chancellor in this particular case was acting, as he thought, pursuant to an agreement between counsel for both parties, that the question of jurisdiction would be waived. However, this Court held: It was erroneous to hear the motion to dissolve the injunction and sustain it at a place out of the district in which the suit was pending. Chancellors are appointed for chancery districts, and are confined to them in performance of judicial acts, except as authorized by law, and we are not aware of any law providing for hearing a motion to dissolve an injunction outside of the district in which the cause is pending. Id. ¶ 19. However, based on the unique facts and circumstances of this case, this argument is without merit. On February 25, 2009, the special chancellor held a hearing on Greene County's motion for contempt, CMI's motion for recusal and CMI's motion for continuance, in Jackson. Greene County alleged that CMI had failed to comply with the trial court's Transition Order. CMI alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the hearing should have been held in Greene County, where the matter was filed. CMI argued that, because the hearing was held in Jackson, instead of Greene County, CMI was not able to call particular witnesses and present evidence and, thus, was deprived of due process. ¶ 20. While CMI alleges that it was denied due process by not being able to call particular witnesses and present evidence, CMI fails to recognize Mississippi Code Section 9-5-85, which states that the chancery courts of this State have the power to summon or subpoena any witness, whose appearance in court may be deemed necessary for any purpose, whether such witness resides in the same county or any other county. Miss.Code Ann. § 9-5-85 (Rev.2002). Thus, prior to the hearing, CMI could have requested the chancery court to issue subpoenas for the witnesses it expected to call, but did not. ¶ 21. In addition, the special chancellor in this case did not transfer venue in this matter. The special chancellor held only one hearing in Jackson, and it was held at the convenience of counsel for CMI. [7] Moreover, the special chancellor did not find any of the parties in contempt and clarified only certain provisions of the Transition Order relating to the transfer of information from CMI to George Regional and Greene County. Therefore, this Court finds that, based on the unique facts and circumstances of this case, CMI's argument is without merit.