Opinion ID: 1103323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying punzo's request for a mandatory permanent injunction.

Text: ¶ 25. This Court will not disturb a judge's findings of fact unless they are manifestly wrong. USPCI of Miss., Inc., 688 So.2d at 786 (citing RC Constr. Co., 622 So.2d at 1255). The trial court made detailed findings of fact after a trial on the merits and concluded that Punzo did not sustain the burden of proof required to justify the court's establishment of a mandatory injunction against the County. However, the trial court did not rely on recent case law handed down by this Court on the subject of mandatory injunctions. ¶ 26. The trial court cites accurately to three cases, dating 1934, 1971, and 1978. The main case relied on by the trial court appears to be Thomas v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 170 Miss. 811, 152 So. 269, 271 (1934), in which we held Nothing is better settled in this state, and nothing is or ought to be better understood, than the rule that a mandatory injunction should never issue unless the right to it is so clearly and certainly shown that there can be no reasonable doubt of its propriety, no probability that the defendant can make any valid objection to it and no possibility that its justice can be controverted. This standard requires more of a showing by the plaintiff than is required by the standard followed in more recent cases. In Reynolds v. Amerada Hess Corp., 778 So.2d 759, 765 (Miss.2000), we stated, To obtain a permanent injunction, a party must show an imminent threat of irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. (citing City of Water Valley v. Trusty, 343 So.2d 471, 472 (Miss. 1977)). In Reynolds, this Court made no mention of a requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which the trial court stated is the proof required. ¶ 27. In Hall v. Wood, 443 So.2d 834, 841 (Miss.1983), though this Court suggested use of extreme caution in granting a mandatory injunction, we did not require a showing of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We stated, A mandatory injunction should be ordered where such is `the only effective remedy.' Id. (quoting Warrior, Inc. v. Easterly, 360 So.2d 700, 704 (Miss.1978); citing Homes, Inc. v. Anderson, 235 So.2d 680, 683 (Miss.1970)). For further clarification, we explained, Mandatory injunctions should be granted only where that which they demand is reasonably practicable. A mandatory injunction requiring a practical impossibility should never issue. Homes, Inc. v. Anderson, 235 So.2d 680, 683 (Miss.1970). The expense and hardship to the party enjoined should also be considered. That these may be substantial counsels caution and restraint. Hall, 443 So.2d at 841. This decision does require that the remedy be practicable. ¶ 28. In Pattillo v. Bridges, 247 So.2d 811 (Miss.1971), this Court did cite Thomas but not to the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Pattillo declared, Thomas v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 1934, 170 Miss. 811, 152 So. 269; Miss. Power & Light Co. v. McCoglan Hotel, Miss.1934, 152 So. 271, 28 Am.Jur., Secs. 17-22, states that a mandatory injunction is a rather harsh remedial process and is not favored by the courts. It is not regarded with judicial favor and is used only with caution and in cases of great necessity. The case must be one clearly disclosing irreparable injury to the complainant. (233 Miss. at 176, 101 So.2d at 506). 247 So.2d at 812. ¶ 29. The trial court erred in not applying the correct legal standard. We reverse and remand this case with instructions to the trial court to apply the legal standard as stated in Reynolds, requiring the requesting party to show an imminent threat of irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and in keeping with Homes, Inc. a mandatory injunction should be granted only if reasonably practicable.