Gulfport Partners V, L.P. v. Harrison County Board of Supervisors, 2016-CA-00062-COA

Background

Gulfport Partners and related appellants appealed 2011 ad valorem county tax assessments to the Harrison County Circuit Court under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-77.
After Willow Bend Estates v. Humphreys County Bd. of Supervisors clarified valuation for affordable rental housing, the parties agreed on corrected assessments and an agreed judgment ordering refunds; the court retained jurisdiction for costs and interest.
Gulfport Partners moved to tax costs (including bond premium costs required by statute to perfect the appeal) and for prejudgment interest on the liquidated tax overpayments.
The circuit court denied recovery of bond premiums, holding no statutory authority to award them, and denied prejudgment interest because it was not demanded in the pleadings and no statutory mandate existed.
Gulfport Partners appealed. The Court of Appeals considered (1) whether bond premiums are recoverable as "costs" under § 11-51-77 and (2) whether prejudgment interest should have been awarded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are bond premiums recoverable as "costs" under § 11-51-77?	Bond premiums paid to post the statutory appeal bond are "costs" and must be paid by the board when appellant prevails.	Rules of Appellate Procedure don't govern circuit-court appeals from supervisors; statute does not explicitly list bond premiums as costs.	Reversed: bond premiums are recoverable as costs under § 11-51-77; circuit court erred in denying them.
Is prejudgment interest recoverable on the liquidated tax overpayment?	Prejudgment interest compensates for detention of overdue money; refund was for a liquidated amount, so interest should be awarded.	No demand for prejudgment interest was made in pleadings; no statute explicitly mandates interest on tax refunds.	Affirmed: denial of prejudgment interest was not an abuse of discretion because plaintiff failed to demand it and no statutory entitlement exists.

Key Cases Cited

Willow Bend Estates LLC v. Humphreys County Bd. of Supervisors, 166 So. 3d 494 (Miss. 2013) (interpreted statute governing true value of affordable rental housing for ad valorem taxation)
Lenoir v. Madison Cty., 641 So. 2d 1124 (Miss. 1994) (specific statute controls over general statute in tax appeals)
Miss. Ethics Comm’n v. Grisham, 957 So. 2d 997 (Miss. 2007) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
AmFed Nat’l Ins. v. NTC Transp. Inc., 196 So. 3d 947 (Miss. 2016) (apply plain meaning of statute)
Hubbard v. Delta Sanitation of Miss., 64 So. 3d 547 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (definition of costs as official expenses a court assesses)
Indem. Ins. of N. Am. v. Guidant Mut. Ins., 99 So. 3d 142 (Miss. 2012) (standard: trial court has discretion to award prejudgment interest)
Arcadia Farms P’ship v. Audubon Ins. Co., 77 So. 3d 100 (Miss. 2012) (prejudgment interest compensates for detention of overdue money)
Moeller v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 812 So. 2d 953 (Miss. 2002) (discusses purpose of prejudgment interest)
Upchurch Plumbing Inc. v. Greenwood Util. Comm’n, 964 So. 2d 1100 (Miss. 2007) (party requesting prejudgment interest must demand it in the complaint)
Van Meter v. Alford, 774 So. 2d 430 (Miss. 2000) (appellate rules apply when circuit court sits as appellate court — cited in dissent)
Am. Inv’rs Inc. v. King, 733 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 1999) (similar proposition on appellate-rule applicability cited in dissent)
Adams v. Miss. State Oil & Gas Bd., 80 So. 3d 869 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (cited regarding when appellate rules apply in circuit court)