Opinion ID: 1607405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Kent, as the trial court already had entered a default judgment against Kent and Kent never requested dismissal of the Whitakers' claims against him.

Text: ¶ 20. While the Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the trial court erred in dismissing Kent, it affirmed the dismissal of Kent for other reasons. According to the Court of Appeals: [i]n this case ... even if the Court were to reverse the portion of the order on the Rule 60(b) motion dismissing Kent on the grounds that the trial court improperly granted relief to Kent, such a ruling would be pointless. The trial court apparently granted the relief to Kent in recognition of the fact that the default judgment was void ab initio in light of the J & J Timber case. As a matter of law, the date that the Whitakers entered into the release with Progressive was the date that Kent effectively was dismissed from the litigation with prejudice and the date that T & M Foods became entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The Whitakers entered into that release with Progressive on September 17, 2002. The default judgment was not entered until May 26, 2006. Whitaker, 7 So.3d at 954, 2007 WL 2772001 at , 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 634, at  (emphasis added). This Court's resolution of the other issues raised herein requires reversal of the trial court's ruling.