Opinion ID: 1111328
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: statutory considerations

Text: The appellant contends the complaint and the affidavit in support of the petition for attachment order substantially complied with the requirements of the attachment statute, MCA §§ 11-31-1, et seq. (Supp. 1986). The defendant, on the other hand, argues that in two important respects it has failed to do so. § 11-31-2(1)(a) states in part: Upon the filing of the bill of complaint, the complainant may apply for an order of attachment by presenting to the chancellor a bill and an affidavit which shall include ... a detailed statement of the facts and grounds which entitled the complainant to an order of attachment, including a statement of the specific reasons why the complainants ability to recover the amount of his claim may be endangered or impeded if the order of attachment is not issued. The appellee correctly points out that the plaintiff's original affidavit in support of the attachment gave no such reason. The appellant has two responses to this argument. The first is barely serious; she asserts the chancellor would not have signed the order for attachment if he had not believed the attachment statute had been complied with. But if the statute was not in fact complied with, the chancellor's belief would not have entitled him to assume jurisdiction. Moreover, by dismissing the action, the chancellor presumably served notice that he had changed his mind about the compliance with the statute. It is this dismissal, not the signing of the initial order, which is under review in this appeal. The appellant does not attempt to come to grips with the argument more substantively by stating in her affidavit, the defendant Sonat Exploration Company has now in its possession its royalty forms which, unless prevented by order of attachment, it will continue to periodically deliver to the defendant, Anita Ford Rudolph. But this surely does not serve the statutory purpose. The royalties are from oil and gas interests in Marion County, MS. The land from which the oil and gas is extracted is not going anywhere; nor is it alleged that the reserves of oil and gas are in any danger of depletion. Thus, the affidavit does not establish that the means of satisfying any judgment would be lost if the royalties were not attached. A second requirement for a valid attachment order is that the affidavit must include a statement of the amount the plaintiff seeks to recover. MCA § 11-31-2(1)(c). Here the only thing the plaintiff can point to is a passage in the bill stating certain evaluations have been performed and conducted regarding the property wrongfully taken by defendant Rudolph. Those valuations indicate that the value of the property wrongfully taken is $250,000 to $300,000 in value or more.  (emphasis in original) This will not do. A rough estimate of the value in question (give or take about $50,000) simply cannot supply the place of a specific request for damages. Moreover, even if it were satisfactory, the statute says: Upon the filing of the bill of complaint, the complainant may apply for an order of attachment by presenting to the chancellor the bill, and an affidavit which shall include the following: ... (c) a statement of the amount the plaintiff seeks to recover. In other words, whether or not the amount of damages requested appears in the bill, it must appear in the affidavit. Yet there is nothing in the affidavit about the value of the land or about the amount the plaintiff is seeking to recover. This court has held that because attachment and garnishment are proceedings in derogation of the common law, strict compliance with statutory norms and procedures are imperative whenever they are employed. Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. S. & W. Constr. Co., 475 So.2d 145, 147 (Miss. 1985). As noted, the affidavit produced by the plaintiff in the present case did not meet the statutory requirements and the chancellor very properly dissolved the attachments.