Opinion ID: 1915058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was venue improperly placed in the Forrest County Chancery Court in an action against the Board of Trustees of the Institutions of Higher Learning?

Text: The Board of Trustees assert that all acts complained of occurred in Hinds County; since the central office and staff of the Board of Trustees, and all records and files relevant to the cause of action are maintained in Hinds County; consequently, venue rests in the First Judicial District of Hinds County. Mississippi Rules Civil Procedure 82 provides that venue is controlled by statute. However, there is no specific statute setting the venue of an action against this Board created by Miss. Const. § 213-A. This suit names only the Board as defendant; it lists the individual board members in their official capacity, but the suit is not filed against them individually. The University of Southern Mississippi, a university managed by the Board, is located at Hattiesburg. Venue is, therefore, sought not in the county of residence of an individual board member, but in a county in which the Board does business. See contra, Williams v. Stevens, 390 So.2d 1012 (Miss. 1980) (venue was changed from residence of an individual board member, sued personally, to venue of the office of the Board in Hinds County). The general statute on venue of suits in chancery court, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-5-1 (1972), provides: [A]ll cases not otherwise provided may be brought in the chancery court of the county where the defendant, or any necessary part defendant, may reside or be found; and in all cases process may issue to any county... . Additionally, Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-13(1) (Supp. 1985), The Public Records Act, provides: Any person denied the right granted by section 25-61-5 to inspect and/or copy public records may institute a suit in the chancery court of the county in which the public body is located, ... In the absence of a specific statute for the filing of suit against the College Board, I conclude that venue is controlled either by the general venue statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-5-1 (Supp. 1986), which prescribes that venue is proper where the defendant resides or may be found, or by the Public Meetings Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-13(1) (Supp. 1986), which prescribes that venue is proper where the public body is located. Under either interpretation the Board can be said to reside, be found, or be located in Forrest County and there, venue is proper. This interpretation, however, does not preclude the Board's application for, nor a trial court's granting, a change of venue to a forum of convenience. Consideration of record transfer, convenience to witnesses, parties, attorneys and staff, and community resources for lodging are pertinent to the determination of venue under M.R.C.P. Rule 82(d). Therefore, I would hold that the trial court properly overruled the motion for change of venue and set the case for trial in a county in which the Board does business.