Opinion ID: 1632428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the chancery court erred in failing to transfer this case to the circuit court of oktibbeha county, mississippi.

Text: ¶ 15. The cases are legion where we have stated that the issue of jurisdiction is a question of law which we must review applying a de novo standard. Trustmark Nat'l Bank v. Johnson, 865 So.2d 1148, 1150 (Miss.2004) (citing Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. Smith, 854 So.2d 1045, 1048 (Miss.2003); Rogers v. Eaves, 812 So.2d 208, 211 (Miss.2002)). ¶ 16. Starkville asserts that this suit has now become basically a breach of contract suit wherein Starkville seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages from 4-County for its failure to comply with the terms of the 1963 Agreement. In addressing this issue, we look first to Starkville's Complaint for Specific Performance, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Damages, which Starkville itself chose to file in chancery court (not circuit court), on April 7, 1995, thus commencing this protracted litigation. The prayer contained in this complaint sought relief via the chancery court's (1) declaring that the 1963 Agreement was valid and enforceable as between the parties; (2) ordering that 4-County specifically perform its obligations under the 1963 Agreement by way of a good faith negotiation with Starkville for its purchase of 4-County's distribution and service rights within the newly annexed area; (3) issuing a temporary and permanent injunction thus enjoining 4-County from extending its distribution facilities in the newly annexed area; (4) finding that 4-County willfully and wrongfully breached the 1963 Agreement (thus entitling Starkville to a recovery of actual and punitive damages); and, (5) awarding such other general and special relief as may be proper in the premises. ¶ 17. In its order denying Starkville's motion to transfer this case to circuit court, the chancellor stated that [s]ubject matter jurisdiction is determined from the allegations of the complaint. The complaint seeks specific performance of a contract which is an equitable remedy..... ¶ 18. In Trustmark, we held that the circuit court erred in denying a motion to transfer to chancery court. In so doing, we readily acknowledged that most of our recently decided cases on the issue of transfer involved the question of whether a case commenced in chancery court should have been transferred to circuit court. 865 So.2d at 1152 (citing Briggs & Stratton Corp.; City of Ridgeland v. Fowler, 846 So.2d 210 (Miss.2003); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Estate of Francis, 825 So.2d 38 (Miss.2002)). We noted in Trustmark that the circuit court complaint, while asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence, actually focused on the administration of a trust which had been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the [chancery court] and has been since its inception. Id. at 1151. We likewise stated in Trustmark: The Plaintiffs counter that they seek legal action rather than equitable remedies and that subject matter jurisdiction is proper in the circuit court; however, the Plaintiffs concede that when determining the true nature of the claim, one must look at the substance, and not the form, of the claim in order to determine whether the claim is legal or equitable.[ [6] ] Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. Smith, 854 So.2d at 1049; Tillotson v. Anders, 551 So.2d 212, 214 (Miss.1989); Thompson v. First Miss. Nat'l Bank, 427 So.2d 973, 976 (Miss.1983); Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Allison, 372 So.2d 1081, 1085 (Miss.1979). As Trustmark correctly asserts, [a]lthough, the Plaintiffs employ the language of negligence and legal remedy, the fundamental substance of their claim is testamentary and equitable. 865 So.2d at 1151. ¶ 19. When we review Starkville's complaint in today's case, we can state with confidence that the relief sought on specific performance of a contract is typically the type of relief to be considered by our chancellors sitting as a court of equity. Additionally, Starkville presumably made a knowing and conscious decision to commence this litigation in chancery court (as opposed to circuit court) when it filed its complaint in 1995. This case has been litigated in chancery court, appealed to this Court, and relitigated in chancery court. As we stated in Rogers, because the chancery court had already heard extensive litigation in the case, it was certainly in the best position to hear and resolve the relevant issues in the related case which had been commenced. 812 So.2d at 211-12. In fact, in today's case, the same chancellor has been involved with the litigation of this case since its inception in 1995. Who was in a better position to fairly and correctly decide the issues in this case than the learned chancellor who had presided over all the proceedings in this case from the very beginning? Trustmark, 865 So.2d at 1151. ¶ 20. Thus, for the reasons stated, we find that the chancellor quite appropriately denied Starkville's motion to transfer this case to the Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County. Inasmuch as we have determined that the Chancery Court of Oktibbeha County had jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, we now turn to the remaining issues.