Opinion ID: 1960187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment to Goodman.

Text: ¶ 9. The grant of summary judgment for the non-moving party clearly is proper if both sides agree that there are no material fact issues and join in the request that the case be decided, for the moving or the non-moving side, on the basis of a motion for judgment made by only one of them. 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2720, at 346 (1998). See also Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir.1985); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank, 733 So.2d 863, 867 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). ¶ 10. In Scottsdale, the only Mississippi case dealing with the propriety of granting summary judgment to a non-moving party, after one of the parties filed a motion for summary judgment and both of the parties submitted a Stipulation of Fact and Waiver of Jury Trial, the trial judge made a determination of the legal effect of the agreed-upon facts. The Mississippi Court Appeals affirmed, finding that the nonmoving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ¶ 11. In the case sub judice, Goodman and APAC did not enter into a Stipulation of Fact and Waiver of Jury Trial. It appears from the record that Goodman appeared at the hearing to defend against APAC's motion; however, the trial court not only denied APAC's motion, but entered partial summary judgment in favor of Goodman, even though the hotly contested issue of fact of whether Falco was a subcontractor or a materialman existed.