Opinion ID: 1821945
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether granting a summary judgment motion to the city of vicksburg by order constituted a final judgment from which an appeal could have been taken

Text: ¶ 6. Whether the trial court's granting of summary judgment was proper is not at issue in the case sub judice. Rather, the primary issue is whether the order granting City's motion for summary judgment constituted a final judgment from which appeal could have been taken. Thompson contends that since the order granting summary judgment was not styled Judgment or Final Judgment, that order was not a final appealable judgment; and therefore, her case was still pending at the time she filed her motion for reconsideration. Thompson concludes that since her case was still pending, her motion for reconsideration was timely filed, and the trial court erred in denying said motion. Alternatively, City argues that an order is not invalid as a final adjudication because it is styled order and not judgment, and that the order granting summary judgment was a final appealable order. ¶ 7. In support of her contention, Thompson relies upon Rule 58 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure which states, Every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document which bears the title of `Judgment.' A judgment shall be effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in M.R.C.P. 79(a). Miss. R. Civ. P. 58 (emphasis added). ¶ 8. Mullen v. Green Tree Fin.-Corp., 730 So.2d 9 (Miss.1998) provides an interpretation of Rule 58 upon which Thompson relies. In Mullen we held that the language of Rule 58 is clear and unambiguous in that it requires a separate document entitled Judgment as a final order. Id. In support of a literal interpretation of Rule 58, we noted that in the Comments to Rule 54(a) of Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure [t]he terms `decision' and `judgment' are not synonymous under these rules. The decision consists of the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law; the rendition of judgment is the pronouncement of that decision and the act gives it legal effect. Id. at 12. We went on to describe the need for parties to know the date of a final judgment so they can proceed under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure for filing the various time sensitive motions. Id. (citing Bruce v. Bruce, 587 So.2d 898 (Miss.1991); Allen v. Mayer, 587 So.2d 255, 260 (Miss.1991); Miss.Code Ann. § 11-51-79 (1972); Miss. R.App. P. 4). We further explained that the need supports the requirement of Rule 58 that all judgments must bear the title of `Judgment'. Id. ¶ 9. In Mullen, we further held that a ruling by a trial court was not a final judgment even though it was treated as a judgment, as reflected by its enrollment on the Minutes of the County Court and the judge contemplated that a judgment was incorporated [sic] within the Court's ruling... as the last paragraph of the Ruling goes beyond that decision reached to order an express action. Id. at 12. ¶ 10. The document in issue in Mullen was not an order granting summary judgment but rather a ruling of the court responding to a declaration of replevin. Id. at 11. Like the ruling in Mullen, the order granting summary judgment here was entered into the minutes and court docket of the trial court. The trial court in Mullen held that the ruling was not a final judgment. Id. at 12. In keeping with Mullen, we find that the order granting summary judgment did not constitute a final judgment from which appeal could have been taken. ¶ 11. We have previously reinstated an appeal which had been dismissed for not being timely filed on the basis that no final judgment was entered. Roberts v. Grafe Auto Co., 653 So.2d 250 (Miss.1994). We held in Roberts that documents entitled Jury Verdict for Defendant were not considered a final judgment from which an appeal could have been taken. Id. Even though the Jury Verdict for Defendant in Roberts was not entered in the court docket as required by M.R.C.P. 79(a) and a notice of entry was not served upon the parties as required by M.R.C.P. 77(d), the pronounced law still applies. Roberts, 653 So.2d at 250. In the case sub judice, an entry was made on the court docket concerning the order granting summary judgment, and both Thompson and City were given notification of said order in line with their respective due process rights. Thompson knew an order granting summary judgment had been granted in favor of City. In fact, her attorney at the time, Wayne E. Ferrell, wrote a letter and submitted to the trial court a proposed Final Judgment requesting final judgment be entered. The trial court has not, to date, entered a document styled Final Judgment. Roberts is still sound law, and we will not stray from it. The motion for reconsideration is reinstated as no final judgment has been entered.