Opinion ID: 1634662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: IF THE TRIAL COURT HAS SUCH DISCRETION, DID THE CHANCELLOR ABUSE ITS [sic] DISCRETION BY TAXING COSTS FOR LOST INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY?

Text: It is the opinion of this Court that the record fails to evidence sufficient proof as to the appropriate rate of interest upon which the chancellor could base his determination of any loss of investment opportunity. The only evidence before the chancellor was that Mantee was generally buying three-year Treasury securities at the time of the appeal. No evidence was offered showing that Mantee would have bought a three-year Treasury note, or that Mantee offered to do so. The use of a three-year yield rate was arbitrary and repeatedly objected to by United Southern. The chancellor's use of the three year yield rate without proof that Mantee offered or moved to pledge such securities was speculative and an abuse of discretion. Lovett v. E.L. Garner, Inc., 511 So.2d 1346, 1354 (Miss. 1987) (reversing chancellor's cost award of attorney's fees where no evidence was presented as to time expended, reasonableness or necessity of the fees); Sanford v. Jackson Mall Shopping Center, 516 So.2d 227, 230 (Miss. 1987) (reversing cost award because the record reflects no evidence ... to support this award as being reasonable. Absent such proof, the circuit court erred in making this award). The chancellor's use of the three-year yield rate was speculative and arbitrary and therefore an abuse of discretion.