Opinion ID: 2759931
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: May 4, 2012, Agreed Order

Text: ¶46. As stated above, Mike & Jerry’s properly filed its petition pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 85-7-7, asserting liens in preference of any other interested party. See Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-31. The central issue was whether Mike & Jerry’s, or any other interested party, was entitled to the remedies provided under Mississippi Code Section 85-7-49. ¶47. At the conclusion of the hearing on Trinity’s motion for summary judgment and Mike & Jerry’s motion to amend its complaint, there were no liens on either vessel, for Mike & Jerry’s had released those liens and the trial court had dismissed the liens against the vessels with prejudice. Trinity should have been judicially estopped from being heard on a motion concerning liens that already had been released and dismissed. The trial court conflated the issues of validity of a lien vel non with whether Mike & Jerry’s demand for monetary judgment was valid. Perhaps this explains the flawed reasoning behind the trial court’s Order and Final Judgment entered on June 11, 2013, when the trial court denied Mike & Jerry’s motion to add Trinity as a defendant. ¶48. The liens against the vessels were released by agreement of the parties and order of the court. Upon release of the liens, neither the constitutionality of the water craft seizure statute nor the validity of the liens was to be adjudicated.24 The actions against the vessels were 24 Therefore, it is not necessary to address the constitutionality of the Water Craft Seizure Act. 30 dismissed with prejudice.25 The “subject-matter of the suit” had changed from asserting liens and obtaining a monetary judgment, to only obtaining a remedy, i.e., a monetary judgment. 26 Mike & Jerry’s remaining claim was against the money Trinity withheld from West Coast and paid into the court. ¶49. In one fell swoop, the trial court dismissed Trinity, an interested party, and gave Trinity the money deposited into the court, contrary to its earlier order which allowed for Mike & Jerry’s to proceed on its claims against the money after releasing its liens and claims against the vessels. The trial court’s order foreclosed Mike & Jerry’s opportunity, and that of another interested party (West Coast), to present their claims and/or defenses to the money in the registry of the court. Although the liens were dismissed with prejudice, the money substituted therefore was still at issue and was improperly released by the trial court.27 Again, the trial court conflated two issues. Whether there is a right to assert a lien does not control whether there is a valid claim.