Opinion ID: 1557350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether mr. alford's death renders this case moot.

Text: ¶ 7. The Division asserts that the action is now moot. The Division argues that Mr. Alford failed to apply for Medicaid benefits prior to his death, and that the executrix of Mr. Alford's estate failed to apply within the appropriate time period after his death. Mrs. Alford concedes the controversy is now moot, but argues the Court should apply the public-interest exception and decide the merits of this action. ¶ 8. This Court has ruled that [c]ases in which an actual controversy existed at trial but the controversy has expired at the time of review, become moot. Monaghan v. Blue Bell, Inc., 393 So.2d 466, 466 (Miss.1980). This Court will not adjudicate moot questions. Allred v. Webb, 641 So.2d 1218, 1220 (Miss. 1994) (citations omitted). However, there is an exception, and the mootness rule will not be applied when the questions involved are matters affecting the public interest. Id. We have ruled there is an exception to the general rule as respects moot cases, when the question concerns a matter of such nature that it would be distinctly detrimental to the public interest that there should be a failure by the dismissal to declare and enforce a rule for future conduct. Sartin v. Barlow ex rel. Smith, 196 Miss. 159, 16 So.2d 372, 377 (1944). ¶ 9. We find that this case presents such a matter of public interest. As our current population continues to age and our state's coffers become more strained, we find that this dispute falls within the public-interest exception. Medicaid impacts many Mississippians, and we therefore find it prudent to declare ... a rule for future conduct regarding the jurisdiction of the courts to increase the MMMNA and CSRA. Id.