Opinion ID: 1697805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the civil change of venue statute requires an affidavit.

Text: ¶ 7. After Bayer presented evidence of numerous legal advertisements and pre-trial publicity (both in newspapers and on television), allegedly producing a litigious environment in Holmes County, the circuit court denied Bayer's motion for change of venue, stating as follows: Next is [Bayer's] motion for change of venue. [The] Court has read the motion, as well as the response, and that motion is denied. [The] Court does not find sufficient evidence  there is no affidavit from any Holmes County resident that says [Bayer] could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Holmes County. That motion is denied. Even though the circuit court denied the motion on the general basis of insufficient evidence, the circuit court specifically faulted Bayer for failing to present a Holmes County citizen's affidavit. ¶ 8. Bayer correctly asserts that the circuit court, by requiring an affidavit from a Holmes County resident, has imposed an additional burden not required under Mississippi law. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-51 (Rev.2004) does not require such an affidavit. When a statute is unambiguous it is inappropriate for a court to add or take anything away from it. Wallace v. Raleigh, 815 So.2d 1203, 1208 (Miss. 2002). The statute, which has not been amended since 1942, is clear and unambiguous. Our recent decisions regarding change of venue in a civil action do not require such an affidavit. See Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31, 49 (Miss.2004); Beech v. Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc., 691 So.2d 446, 450 (Miss.1997) (finding change of venue reasonable because of pretrial publicity and numerous similar claims filed in the same county; but not requiring an affidavit). The circuit court therefore erred when it required Bayer's motion for change of venue to be accompanied by an affidavit from a citizen of the county in which suit is filed stating that a defendant cannot receive a fair trial in that county. However, this error is harmless inasmuch as we affirm the denial of the motion on different grounds.