Melton v. Smith's Pecans, Inc., 65 So. 3d 853

Meltons settled a personal-injury suit with Smith’s Pecans for $80,000 and signed a release; Brown indicated Meltons granted him settlement authority and was handling lien issues.
Smith’s Pecans mailed $80,000, an agreed dismissal, and a release to the Meltons; Meltons refused to negotiate or sign.
At a March enforcement hearing, Brown represented the Meltons despite a pending withdrawal; the Meltons did not testify or object to Brown’s representation.
The circuit court directed the Meltons to execute a release and enter an agreed judgment of dismissal; order entered March 9 with fourteen-day compliance deadline.
Smith’s Pecans later moved for contempt; Meltons’ new counsel and then they sought Rule 60(b) relief arguing lack of consent/authority and lack of opportunity to testify.
The circuit court denied Rule 60(b) relief, found Brown had apparent authority to settle, cited the Meltons for contempt, and appointed the circuit clerk to execute the documents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) relief was proper	Meltons; lack of consent/authority; extraordinary relief warranted due to attorney incompetence.	Smith’s Pecans; no extraordinary circumstances; authority supported by conduct.	No abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b) relief denied.
Whether Brown had apparent authority to settle	Meltons did not authorize settlement; testimony creates lack of authority.	Brown had apparent authority based on prior conduct and representations; conduct supported settlement.	Circuit court properly found Brown had apparent authority; no reversal.
Whether Meltons were denied an opportunity to testify at the March hearing	Lack of opportunity to testify supported relief from enforcement.	Meltons were present and could have testified; court weighed other factors.	Not a basis for Rule 60(b) relief; denial affirmed.
Whether contempt and Rule 70(a) appointment to execute documents were proper	Contempt/appointment improper due to underlying erroneous order.	Contempt and appointment proper to enforce a valid order and complete the settlement.	Contempt affirmed and Rule 70(a) appointment proper.
Whether the appellate timing limited review to post-March orders	Timely review of enforcement order should be possible.	Jurisdiction limited to within thirty days; only May 27 orders reviewed.	Appeal limited to May 27 orders; March order challenged for lack of timely appeal.

Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So.2d 219 (Miss. 1984) (standard for Rule 60(b) relief; requires exceptional circumstances)
Parmley v. 84 Lumber Co., 911 So.2d 569 (Miss. 2005) (apparent authority to settle; burden shifting)
Terrain Enters., Inc. v. W. Cas. & Sur. Co., 774 F.2d 1320 (5th Cir. 1985) (apparent authority in agency relationships)
Northrop Grumman Ship Sys., Inc. v. Ministry of Def. of the Republic of Venez., 575 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2009) (meeting of the minds and authority questions are factual)
Overbey v. Murray, 569 So.2d 303 (Miss. 1990) (appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) motion limited review)
Corporate Mgmt., Inc. v. Greene County, 23 So.3d 454 (Miss. 2009) (contempt standards; civil vs. criminal; enforceability)
Dampier v. State, 973 So.2d 221 (Miss. 2008) (failure to cite authority and review limitations)
Stacy v. Ross, 798 So.2d 1275 (Miss. 2001) (contumacy and remedy standards in contempt)
Saint v. Quick, 24 So.3d 395 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (limited appeal review under Rule 60(b))
Bank of Edwards v. Cassity Auto Sales, Inc., 599 So.2d 579 (Miss. 1992) (timeliness and jurisdiction in Rule 60(b) context)