Opinion ID: 1599552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the successor trial judge erred in granting the bank's motion for reconsideration of an earlier judge's order denying summary judgment.

Text: ¶ 24. Holland contends that the trial court erred in granting the Bank's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Summary Judgment, given that Judge Coleman already had entered an order denying summary judgment and given that Judge Lee already had set the date for trial. In support of this argument, Holland points to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which states in pertinent part: On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representation from a final judgment, order, or proceedings for the following reasons: .... (6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Holland claims that since no other subparagraph of Rule 60(b) applies (i.e., fraud, accident or mistake, etc.) and no new evidence was put forth by the Bank that would justify relief, the original order denying summary judgment entered by Judge Coleman should stand. ¶ 25. The Bank contends that Judge Lee was not bound by Judge Coleman's previous denial of its motion for summary judgment. This issue is laid to rest based on our prior case law. An order denying summary judgment is neither final nor binding upon the court or successor courts. Mauck v. Columbus Hotel Co., 741 So.2d 259, 268 (Miss.1999) (citing Great So. Nat'l Bank v. Minter, 590 So.2d 129, 133, 135 (Miss.1991)). Moreover, [a]t the point of final decision on the merits [the trial judge] was duty bound to apply the law to the record then before the court, regardless of any prior ruling denying summary judgment. Id. at 268-69. In other words, the law-of-the-case doctrine, wherein a successor judge is precluded from correcting errors of law made by the predecessor judge or from revising the predecessor judge's order or judgment on its merits, has no applicability where the order or judgment is not of a final character. Mauck, 741 So.2d at 268. This is true even where there has been an intervening denial of a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, given that this Court's denial of an interlocutory appeal is not a final judgment on the merits. Id. ¶ 26. Thus, Holland's reliance on Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) is misplaced in that the rule applies only where the judgment or order is final. In accordance with Mauck, an order denying a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment. For the reasons stated, Judge Lee was acting within his authority as trial judge in considering and granting the Bank's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Summary Judgment. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.