Carla Speights Darnell v. William Duff Darnell
199 So. 3d 695
| Miss. | 2016Background
- Carla and William Darnell litigated custody and divorce in Jefferson Davis County Chancery Court; the Supreme Court previously reversed and remanded for reconsideration and a new Albright analysis.
- On remand the chancellor entered an amended final judgment of divorce on April 23, 2015.
- Eight days later Carla filed a timely post-judgment motion under Miss. R. Civ. P. 59 to alter or amend the judgment, or alternatively for a new trial.
- While that Rule 59 motion remained pending and undetermined in chancery court, Carla filed a notice of appeal and William filed a cross-appeal.
- The Supreme Court sua sponte addressed appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal because the Rule 59 motion was still pending, leaving no final, appealable judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appeal is effective while a timely Rule 59 motion remains pending | Carla appealed the amended final judgment despite the pending Rule 59 motion | William cross-appealed; implicitly argued appeal should proceed | Appeal ineffective; Court lacks jurisdiction while Rule 59 motion is undecided |
| Whether Carla’s Rule 59 motion was timely and suspended the appeal period | Carla’s Rule 59 motion was filed eight days after judgment and therefore timely | William did not dispute timeliness | Motion was timely under Miss. R. App. P. 4(d); notice of appeal is ineffective until disposition of that motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Darnell v. Darnell, 167 So. 3d 195 (Miss. 2014) (prior remand ruling requiring reconsideration and Albright analysis)
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (standards for child custody determinations)
- Michael v. Michael, 650 So. 2d 469 (Miss. 1995) (court must note lack of jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Mallery v. Taylor, 792 So. 2d 226 (Miss. 2001) (notice of appeal ineffective until disposition of Rule 59 motions)
- Perryman v. Gardner, 42 Miss. 548 (1869) (historical precedent that appeals are not effective when chancery motion to set aside remains undecided)