Opinion ID: 1862520
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the chancery court err in ordering appellant Crowe to pay all of the charges of the master?

Text: Crowe complains that, in taxing costs of the master to him, the court violated its previous order that expenses be split between the parties. In the order appointing the special master, the chancellor ordered that each party shall equally share the costs of the Master upon the Master providing a voucher and invoices to this Court for his or her services and expenses. In the judgment of August 16, 1988, however, the chancellor ordered Crowe to pay to Smith all the costs of this action, including the fees of the Special Master paid by James W. Smith... . The rules of civil procedure allow the court to appoint a master and to compensate the master as allowed by the court and taxed in the costs... . Miss.R.Civ.P. 53(a) (1988). Rule 54 states that costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs... . Miss.R.Civ.P. 54(d) (1988). The comment explaining rule 54(d) states: Costs refers to those charges that one party has incurred and is permitted to have reimbursed by his opponent as part of the judgment in the action... . [T]axable costs under Rule 54(d) ... represents those official expenses ... that a court will assess against a litigant. Miss.R.Civ.P. 54 comment (1988) (emphasis in original). Based on a plain reading of the rule 54, the official expenses which the prevailing party incurs and which the non-prevailing party must reimburse cannot be determined until judgment, when a prevailing party is determined. According to rule 53, the payment of a master is a cost, and thus falls under the ambit of rule 54. Examining the record in this case, it appears that the court made a preliminary determination for compensating the master. Then, once a prevailing party had been determined, the chancellor assessed the non-prevailing party with those costs which the prevailing party had incurred for the services of the special master. This assessment against Crowe was mandated by rule 54 and was not error.