163 So. 3d 263
Miss.2015Background
- Abutting landowners Gunn and Harris sued to confirm title to a sand beach south of a seawall in Ocean Springs; State, County, and City claim public tidelands title.
- Chancellor granted partial summary judgment that the tidelands boundary is the mean high water line closest to July 1, 1973, and that the sand beach was not tidelands; title was vested in Gunn and Harris.
- Trial on adverse possession and public prescriptive easement claims found no title by those means for the State, County, or City, and granted Easements to City and County; State appealed.
- State challenged admissibility of expert Dr. Cole’s affidavit; court struck it but later found error, and ultimately held summary judgment inappropriate.
- Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the partial summary judgment, held issues of fact remained, and remanded for a full merits trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment on tidelands. | State argued boundary fixed by 1973 mean high water line; tidelands boundary needed. | Gunn/Harris contended line was correct boundary and no admissible evidence of pre-1973 tidelands filling. | Partial summary judgment reversed; issues of fact to be tried. |
| Whether the chancellor erred in denying the State's dismissal motion based on statute of limitations. | Tidelands Act limitations bar action; dismissal proper. | Dismissal not proper avenue to resolve limitations; issues for trial. | Remanded; limitations issues to be resolved at trial. |
| Whether the chancellor erred in confirming fee simple title to the sand beach in Gunn and Harris. | State’s evidence showed tidelands boundary would include beach; title should not be in Gunn/Harris. | Evidence insufficient to prove tidelands boundary; title should remain with Gunn/Harris. | Remanded for full merits trial. |
| Whether the exclusion of Dr. Cole’s expert testimony was error. | Defense abused gatekeeping; Cole’s affidavit should be allowed or properly cured. | Affidavit was improper under Rule 56 and discovery rules; exclusion appropriate. | Reversal of the strike ruling; remand to allow response if proceedings restart. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi State Highway Comm’n v. Gilich, 609 So. 2d 367 (Miss. 1992) (tidelands boundary; artificial accretions)
- Bayview Land, Ltd. v. State ex rel. Clark, 950 So. 2d 966 (Miss. 2006) ( artificial accretions; public trust boundary proof)
- Guice v. Harrison County, 140 So. 2d 838 (Miss. 1962) (sand beach; title allocation when seawall exists)
- Cinque Bambini P’ship. v. State, 491 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 1986) (tidelands boundary; accretions and public trust)
- Secretary of State v. Wiesenberg, 633 So. 2d 983 (Miss. 1994) (tidelands map discretion; boundary methodology)
- Bayview Land, Ltd. v. State ex rel. Clark, 950 So.2d 966 (Miss. 2006) (artificial accretions; public trust boundary proof)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1988) (state ownership of tidelands upon admission; public trust)
- Miss. State Hwy. Comm’n. v. Gilich, 609 So. 2d 367 (Miss. 1992) (tidelands boundary; artificial accretions)
- Stewart v. Hoover, 815 So. 2d 1157 (Miss. 2002) (tidelands; title boundaries; mean high water line)