134 So. 3d 374
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- In June 2006 the Town of Tchula Board found Eddie James Carthan’s warehouse a public nuisance and voted to demolish it; demolition occurred June 18, 2006.
- Carthan delivered a letter to the mayor and Board on June 16, 2006, stating he "appeal[ed]" the June 8 decision and noting discrepancies and procedural errors.
- Carthan later attempted to address the Board on July 13, 2006, but the Board declined to hear the matter because it was not on the agenda, and the building had already been demolished.
- On May 6, 2008, Carthan sued in Holmes County Circuit Court alleging an unconstitutional taking and deprivation of due process.
- The Town moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, holding the court lacked jurisdiction because Carthan failed to perfect an appeal under Mississippi Code § 11-51-75 (no proper bill of exceptions).
- The majority of this court affirmed for lack of jurisdiction; a dissent would have reversed and remanded, finding material factual issues and that Carthan’s notice should have sufficed or been able to be amended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carthan perfected an appeal under Miss. Code § 11-51-75 | Carthan argues his June 16 letter constituted timely notice and a "bill of exceptions" to perfect appeal | Town argues the letter did not embody the facts/judgment as a bill of exceptions as required | Held: No — the letter was not a proper bill of exceptions and appeal was not perfected |
| Whether failure to perfect appeal deprives circuit court jurisdiction over Carthan's separate takings suit | Carthan contends timely notice plus circumstances (Board inaction and demolition) should preserve jurisdiction or allow amendment | Town contends statutory 10-day and bill-of-exceptions requirement is jurisdictional and bars the suit | Held: Statute is jurisdictional; failure to perfect appeal deprived court of jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court should have allowed amendment or supplementation of the bill of exceptions | Carthan argues court could/must allow amendment or remand to obtain proper record given Board's conduct | Town argues strict compliance is required and Carthan failed to timely present a proper record | Held: Majority rejects this relief; finds no jurisdiction due to defective bill of exceptions (dissent would have allowed amendment/remand) |
| Whether demolition rendered appeal moot and entitled plaintiff to independent suit for due process/takings | Carthan argues demolition foreclosed appeal and left him no remedy but a civil suit | Town argues statutory procedural route was the exclusive path and was not followed | Held: Majority does not reach substantive takings claim because jurisdictional defect; suit dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- McPhail v. City of Lumberton, 832 So.2d 489 (Miss. 2002) (appeal under § 11-51-75 is jurisdictional; failure to perfect appeal bars circuit court jurisdiction)
- Wilkinson Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Quality Farms Inc., 767 So.2d 1007 (Miss. 2000) (circuit court as appellate body may consider only the case presented by the bill of exceptions)
- Stewart v. City of Pascagoula, 206 So.2d 325 (Miss. 1968) (a fatally defective bill of exceptions leaves no record for appellate review and deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Bowen v. DeSoto Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 852 So.2d 21 (Miss. 2003) (filing a notice of appeal can vest jurisdiction, but procedural record requirements remain important)
- Tilghman v. City of Louisville, 874 So.2d 1025 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (bill of exceptions may be filed or amended within a reasonable time after timely notice of appeal)