McNeese v. McNeese
129 So. 3d 125
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Kenton McNeese filed a Rule 60(b) motion on May 1, 2012 seeking relief from the Final Judgment of divorce while his first appeal was pending.
- The trial court denied relief, dismissed the Rule 60(b) motion, and imposed a $1,000 sanction for alleged frivolity and delay.
- An Agreed Order entered June 19, 2012, dictated certain post-judgment procedures regarding child support and tax obligations.
- Kenton pursued a second appeal challenging the rulings and sanctions.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court held the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the Rule 60(b) motion, but otherwise upheld the denial of relief and sanctions.
- The court ultimately affirmed the denial of Kenton’s Rule 60(b) motion and the sanctions, resolving issues related to jurisdiction, findings, Rule 11 sanctions, and related matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear Rule 60(b) motion during appeal | Kenton argued Rule 60(b) relief was timely and jurisdictional. | Trial court found lack of jurisdiction due to pending appeal. | Trial court erred; jurisdiction to hear timely Rule 60(b) motion existed. |
| Effect and validity of the Agreed Order while an appeal was pending | Kenton challenged the Agreed Order as bias-related; asserted it altered the judgment. | Agreed Order merely specified enforcement/collection of the existing judgment. | Agreed Order valid; did not broaden or modify the judgment. |
| Need for findings of fact and conclusions of law on the Rule 60(b) denial | Kenton requested findings of fact/conclusions of law. | Court denied request because an Agreed Order existed. | No abuse; adequate findings were provided and no authority required for findings on an agreed order. |
| Sanctions under Rule 11 for frivolous Rule 60(b) motion | Kenton contends the motion was colorable. | Court found motion frivolous, not substantially justified, and filed for harassment/delay. | Affirmed sanctions against Kenton. |
| Whether divorce was final and bigamy/rule 62 stay issues | Kenton argued remarriage while the motion was pending implied non-final status. | Rule 62 stays were properly addressed; execution stayed per rules, not undermining final judgment. | Issue without merit; divorce deemed final for purposes of stayed execution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Armana, 679 So.2d 1049 (Miss. 1996) (limited Rule 60(b) jurisdiction after appeal filed)
- In re Estate of Moreland v. Riley, 537 So.2d 1345 (Miss. 1989) (Rule 60(b) concurrent jurisdiction when appeal pending)
- Corporate Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene County, 23 So.3d 454 (Miss. 2009) (appellate proceedings; consent/agreements and court power to enforce judgments)
- McNeil v. Hester, 753 So.2d 1057 (Miss. 2000) (enforcement when no supersedeas bond; consent judgments enforceable)
- Guthrie v. Guthrie, 233 Miss. 550, 102 So.2d 381 (Miss. 1958) (consent judgments rest on unqualified consent of parties)
- Riley v. Wiggins, 908 So.2d 893 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (agreed order treated as judgment under court enforcement powers)
- Samples v. Davis, 904 So.2d 1061 (Miss. 2004) (power of court to sign consent judgment relies on party consent)
- Leaves River Forest Prods. v. Deakle, 661 So.2d 188 (Miss. 1995) (Rule 11 frivolity standard; reasonable belief not enough for sanction)