Opinion ID: 1599989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the lower court err in denying sullivan's motion for a new trial and his motion to open judgment for additional testimony based on newly discovered evidence?

Text: Jacqueline Dendy, a witness for the defendant, testified that she typed the deed which conveyed the property to Bobby and Melissa Heal; that Linda Williams, who did not testify at trial, gave Dendy instructions as to how the deed should be prepared and that Williams told her she was bringing the deed in for Sullivan; that she did not know Bobby or Melissa Heal and that she did not receive any instructions from them regarding the deed; and that she was given the copy of the first deed to get the property description for the deed that she drafted. Dendy never testified that she was instructed to copy the first deed and reserve the life estate for Sullivan. Sullivan contends that the discovery of a possible mistake in drafting the deed entitled him to relief from the lower court judgment and that the lower court erred in not allowing him to develop a cause of action based on mistake. He further argues that the facts surrounding such cause of action were not known to him until his cross-examination of Jacqueline Dendy. Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) (1987) provides the following: Mistakes; Inadvertence; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... . (2) accident or mistake[.] Sullivan was aware that the new deed was different from the original deed. He had the deed in his possession several days before he signed it. When he signed the deed, he was in Harvey Colburn's office (Notary Public) and the only other person present besides Colburn was Colburn's bookkeeper. Bobby and Melissa did not accompany Sullivan to Colburn's office. Before trial, Sullivan could have, and should have, interviewed the person who drafted the deed to determine what instructions were given as to the content of the deed and who gave the instructions. Bobby, however, claims that Sullivan failed to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain the evidence before trial. In Hutto v. Kremer, 222 Miss. 374, 76 So.2d 204 (1954), this Court held: A party asking for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence must satisfy the court that the evidence has come to his knowledge since the trial, and that it was not owing to a want of diligence on his part that it was not discovered sooner; and he must go further and show that the new evidence would probably produce a different result if a new trial were granted. Id. at 385, 76 So.2d at 209. This issue is resolved against Sullivan and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., dissents.