Opinion ID: 864389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of unauthenticated abstracts

Text: ¶15. In its response to Poe and Warner’s motion for summary judgment, the Board had this to say about the photocopied record exhibits: the defendants relied upon: documents marked Exhibits “A” through “H” which purport to be outlines of alleged conveyances for designated quarter sections, but which fail to identify the section, township, and range for which the conveyances pertain, and are otherwise unsworn; . . . documents appearing as composite Exhibit “K” which purport to be an unsworn abstract of conveyances within Section 16, Township 23, Range 8 East, Calhoun County, Mississippi and which are apparently maintained within the office of the Calhoun County Chancery Clerk . . . . The Board also criticized the affidavits as not meeting M.R.C.P. 56(e)’s requirement that they be made on personal knowledge, since nothing in either affidavit demonstrated personal knowledge of real estate’s occupation and ownership in the late 19th century. We review the exhibits and affidavits to determine whether they were admissible evidence on a Rule 56 motion. ¶16. InHaygood v. First National Bank of New Albany, 517 So. 2d 553 (Miss. 1987), one issue was the appellee’s claim that the appellant had submitted an unauthenticated certificate of market value. Id. at 556. This Court stated that the record does not indicate that appellee objected to the form of the certificate or its sufficiency under Miss. R. Civ. P. 56. A party must move to strike an affidavit that 7 violates the rule, and if he fails to do so, he will waive his objection and, in the absence of “gross miscarriage of justice,” the Court may consider the defective affidavit. Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So. 2d 358, 365 (Miss. 1983) quoting 10 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 2738, pp. 507-09 (1973). 517 So. 2d at 556 (emphasis added). In another case, this Court recently reiterated the necessity of a motion to strike: Hare claims the State has waived any such objection, because “[w]here the party against whom a motion for summary judgment is made wishes to attack one or more of the affidavits upon which the motion is based, he must file in the trial court a motion to strike an affidavit.” Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So. 2d 358, 365 (Miss. 1983). Failure to file the motion to strike constitutes waiver of any objection to the affidavit. Travis v. Stewart, 680 So. 2d 214, 217-18 (Miss. 1996). This Court has held that a party opposing summary judgment must be diligent. Grisham v. John Q. Long V.F.W. Post, 519 So. 2d 413, 415 (Miss. 1988). The State made no other objection than the one at the hearing until its argument in its brief before this Court. Therefore, we hold that since the State failed to file a Motion to Strike the Affidavits, it has thus waived any objection now. Hare v. State, 733 So. 2d 277, 284-85 (Miss. 1999). ¶17. The Board’s remarks do cast aspersions on the formal sufficiency of the copies, but the Board did not move to strike them, and given the repeated and express holdings of this Court on this issue,5 we conclude that the Board did waive any objection to the unauthenticated status of the documents. No “gross miscarriage of justice” will arise from the chancellor’s having considered what certainly appear to be copies 5 In oral arguments, the Board quoted the following language from Brown to support its contention that a motion to strike is not absolutely required: “An affidavit that does not measure up to the standards of Rule 56(e) is subject to a timely motion or other objection, formal defects in the affidavit ordinarily are waived.” However, these words are a quotation from a federal court. See Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So. 2d 358, 365 (Miss. 1983) (quoting Auto Drive-Away Co. of Hialeah, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 360 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1966)). The words of this Court’s opinion in Brown are crystal clear: “Where the party against whom a motion for summary judgment is made wishes to attack one or more of the affidavits upon which the motion is based, he must file in the trial court a motion to strike the affidavit.” Id. (emphasis added). While this Court often looks to federal courts’ interpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance, this Court’s explicit requirement regarding the Mississippi Rules takes precedence over parallel federal practice. 8 of genuine documents, and the Board does not argue that any fraud has been perpetrated by the Poe and Warner’s submission of the copies in question.