Kimberlee Davenport v. Hansaworld, USA, Inc.
2017 Miss. LEXIS 17
| Miss. | 2017Background
- HansaWorld obtained a Florida judgment against former employee Kimberlee Davenport for conversion/extortion and enrolled that judgment in Mississippi to collect.
- Davenport had a pending federal Employment Action against HansaWorld asserting Title VII and other claims; HansaWorld sought to levy that chose-in-action by a sheriff’s sale.
- Davenport filed an Emergency Motion to Quash an Alias Writ of Execution days before a scheduled sheriff’s sale, arguing constitutional and statutory protections (including Title VII) barred sale of her lawsuit.
- The circuit court granted the motion to quash but conditioned relief on Davenport posting a $100,000 bond by the day of the sale; Davenport did not post the bond.
- The sheriff sold Davenport’s Employment Action to HansaWorld for $1,000; Davenport appealed the circuit court’s conditional order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s conditional order was a final, appealable judgment | The order quashing the writ (even if conditional) resolved the controversy and is appealable | HansaWorld questioned finality but did not dispute appealability as invoked; Court must nonetheless assess jurisdiction | Court held the order was final and appealable because it adjudicated the merits and left no further action for the trial court |
| Whether Davenport preserved challenge to imposition of $100,000 bond | Davenport argued bond served no purpose and was improper because she sought permanent relief (quash) | HansaWorld argued bond was proper security for injunctive-type relief under M.R.C.P. 65(c); Davenport failed to object so she waived the issue | Court held Davenport waived appellate review of the bond because she did not challenge it below; affirmed judgment |
| Whether trial court had authority to condition quash on bond (preservation aside) | (Dissent) Trial court erred: motion to quash is not a preliminary injunction; Rule 65(c) inapplicable; conditioning nullification on a bond exceeds court’s power | HansaWorld maintained Rule 65(c) supports bond requirement as security for injunctive relief | Majority declined to reach merits due to waiver; dissent would find plain error and reverse |
| Whether plain error doctrine should apply to excuse waiver | Davenport sought review on appeal despite failing to object below | HansaWorld argued waiver bars review; no plain error found by majority | Majority refused to invoke plain error; dissent argued a substantial right was affected and would invoke plain error to address bond’s impropriety |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Parkerson Lumber, Inc., 890 So.2d 832 (Miss. 2003) (courts must consider jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Michael v. Michael, 650 So.2d 469 (Miss. 1995) (jurisdictional review principles)
- Burch v. Land Partners, L.P., 784 So.2d 925 (Miss. 2001) (de novo review for subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Brown v. Collections, Inc., 188 So.3d 1171 (Miss. 2016) (final-judgment standard for appealability)
- Harrington v. Office of Mississippi Secretary of State, 129 So.3d 153 (Miss. 2013) (issues not presented below cannot be raised on appeal)
- State Highway Comm’n of Mississippi v. Hyman, 592 So.2d 952 (Miss. 1991) (failure to object at trial waives error on appeal; plain error doctrine preserves power to notice exceptional errors)