Opinion ID: 1755419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred in upholding the defendant's motion for summary judgment?

Text: The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Palmer v. Biloxi Regional Medical Center, Inc., 564 So.2d 1346 (Miss. 1990); American Legion Ladnier Post No. 42, Inc. v. City of Ocean Springs, 562 So.2d 103 (Miss. 1990); Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037 (Miss. 1990). The copies of documents from Cause No. 28,735 [the February case] were the only evidence Malouf proffered in his effort to show that he was entitled to prevail on the merits of Smith's complaint as a matter of law. As these documents no longer reflect a valid judgment, Malouf's evidence has, in effect, evaporated. We therefore deem Malouf not to have satisfied his burden of production. Malouf argues that since Robert Smith submitted no evidence tending to show that he had a valid interest in the subject property, the grant of summary judgment was proper despite any shortcomings in Malouf's own evidence. Malouf cites cases which hold that the party opposing a motion for summary judgment must bring forward probative evidence of his own in order to defeat the motion. See, e.g., Newell, 556 So.2d at 1041-42; Magee v. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp., 551 So.2d 182, 186 (Miss. 1989); Smith v. First Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. of Grenada, 460 So.2d 786, 792 (Miss. 1984); Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 364 (Miss. 1983). In each of these cases, however, the opposing party was required to bring forth proof to rebut probative evidence offered by the proponent of the motion. These cases are thus inapplicable here: Since Malouf has offered no probative evidence in support of his motion for summary judgment, the risk of persuasion never shifted to Robert Smith. See Brown, 444 So.2d at 364 (proponent of summary judgment motion is not permitted to rest exclusively on the weakness of [opponent's] response... . Before we can affirm the summary judgment ... we must ascertain that the strength of [proponent's] showing is such that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). Regardless of whether the chancellor's ruling was proper at the time he issued it, [1] our subsequent reversal of the February judgment destroyed its factual basis. The moving party bears the burden to show that no facts are in dispute. The judgment therefore cannot stand even if it was not technically erroneous.