Opinion ID: 1656409
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the bank may initiate a sheriff's execution sale against Pacesetter's and Pope's choses in action (their 03-CV-030-B lawsuit claims).

Text: ¶ 21. The trial court entered final judgments against the plaintiffs and in favor of the bank for $815,083.60 and $30,866.31. [8] The trial court also found there is no just reason for delay in the bank's collection of the judgments. The judgment debtor plaintiffs did not appeal the judgments, and they became final. Thus, the bank's right to collect the judgments is not now subject to attack. ¶ 22. Under both clear statutory language and this Court's precedent, the plaintiffs' lawsuits were choses in action and subject to a writ of execution, and the procedure selected by the bank, that is, the initiation of a sheriff's execution sale against the plaintiffs' choses in action, was entirely appropriate. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 13-3-111, which provides for execution on a judgment debtor's assets to collect a final judgment, states in part, [t]he clerks of all courts of law or equity ... shall, at the request and cost of the owner of the judgment or decree or his attorney, issue executions on all judgments and decrees rendered therein.... (Emphasis added). [9] ¶ 23. The key consideration here is the finality of the judgments against the plaintiffs, rendering them judgment debtors. The bank correctly notes, [s]ince it is the finality of the judgment that allows execution, it would make no difference if the bank had obtained its judgments in a separate court proceeding against the Plaintiffs. . . [or] if the bank had bought the two judgments from [a] third party. Consistent availability of the execution option is important. Under the present circumstances, the bank properly initiated a sheriff's execution sale against the plaintiffs' choses in action.