Opinion ID: 1674851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the lower court erred in denying farragut's motion to strike the affidavit of david massey and in considering the affidavit in deliberating on the parties' motions for summary judgment?

Text: Attached to the defendants' motion for summary judgment was an affidavit by David Massey. In the affidavit, Massey averred that Mrs. Farragut was informed that salt water was being disposed of from adjacent wells and knew that the pipeline came across her brother's land and not hers.... Mrs. Farragut never objected to my operations on her land, and even leased the deep rights to me in February of 1987. This lease has the same language for disposal of salt water as the lease taken in 1980. In essence, Massey alleged that Farragut knowingly consented to the disposal of salt water from the Ramsey 3-15 No. 2 well. According to Miss.R.Civ.Pro. Rule 56(e): Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matter stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. Massey's affidavit fails to meet the requirements of Rule 56(e) in at least two respects. First, it merely states that Farragut was informed and knew about the imported salt water. Nowhere does it indicate that Massey had personal knowledge of these alleged facts. Secondly, Massey failed to attach copies of the documents to which he referred in the affidavit. In Briscoe's Foodland v. Capital Associates, 502 So.2d 619, 622 (Miss. 1986), this Court found a supporting affidavit to be worthless for the same two reasons. The lower court thus erred in denying Farragut's motion to strike Massey's affidavit.