Sheriel F. Perkins v. Carolyn McAdams
2016-EC-00407-SCT
| Miss. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- In the June 4, 2013 Greenwood mayoral election, McAdams beat Perkins by 206 votes (2,618 to 2,412). Perkins filed an election contest within 20 days alleging illegal voting and fraud.
- Perkins's amended complaint alleged numerous irregularities (misdelivered pollbooks, improperly counted/rejected absentee and affidavit ballots, nonresident voting, and voter inducement). Federal claims were dropped and the case was remanded to state court.
- At summary-judgment stage, the trial court denied McAdams's motion; after a jury trial Perkins presented limited evidence: pollbook misdelivery in Wards 1 and 2, 52 nonconforming absentee ballots counted, 1 absentee wrongly rejected, and 9 affidavit ballots wrongly rejected.
- Perkins's pollwatchers testified pollbooks (not voters) were initially at the wrong stations; voters signed where they found their names, obtained receipts, then returned to their correct precincts. Over 400 votes were cast before materials were corrected.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict for McAdams, finding Perkins failed to prove illegal voting, nonresident voting, or fraud sufficient to overturn the election; it awarded Perkins $6,440 under M.R.C.P. 56(h) for defending the summary-judgment motion and denied McAdams's post-trial Rule 11 sanctions motion.
- On appeal, Perkins conceded relief was moot because the mayoral term ended; she urged the public-interest exception. McAdams cross-appealed the denial of sanctions and challenged the mandatory attorney-fee award under Rule 56(h).
Issues
| Issue | Perkins's Argument | McAdams's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal should be heard despite mootness under the public-interest exception | Court should decide whether voters may legally vote in a precinct other than their residence because the issue is of public interest | Appeal is moot; statutory law governs and no illegal voter conduct was shown | Appeal dismissed as moot; public-interest exception not applied because statute (23-15-249) covers the situation |
| Whether votes cast during pollbook misdelivery were illegal | Misdelivery led to hundreds voting in wrong precincts, invalidating those votes | Evidence showed pollbooks — not voters — were misplaced; managers provided substitute procedure; votes valid under statute | Votes not illegal; poll managers complied with statute requiring suitable substitute procedures |
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying Rule 11 / Litigation Accountability Act sanctions | Perkins's claims lacked merit and were frivolous | Perkins had some reasonable basis given circumstances and limited time to investigate; claims not frivolous | Affirmed denial of sanctions — complaint not objectively frivolous given available information at filing |
| Whether award of $6,440 attorney's fees under M.R.C.P. 56(h) was mandatory | Trial court treated Rule 56(h) fee award as mandatory for prevailing party | Rule 56(h) mandates reimbursement of reasonable expenses but attorney's fees are discretionary and require finding the summary-judgment motion lacked reasonable cause | Reversed and remanded: expense award remains; trial court must determine whether the summary-judgment motion was without reasonable cause to justify discretionary attorney's fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Misso v. Oliver, 666 So. 2d 1366 (Miss. 1996) (public-interest exception applied where statutory silence left recurring election issue unresolved)
- Sartin v. Barlow, 16 So. 2d 372 (Miss. 1944) (public-interest exception to mootness when failure to decide would harm public interest)
- Sheldon v. Ladner, 38 So. 2d 718 (Miss. 1949) (court's prohibition on advisory opinions extends to election contests)
- Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (U.S. 1969) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review principle in election context)
- Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Deakle, 661 So. 2d 188 (Miss. 1995) (definition of "frivolous" under Rule 11 requires lack of any hope of success)
- Fouche v. Ragland, 424 So. 2d 559 (Miss. 1982) (technical irregularities in absentee-ballot procedures do not invalidate votes absent fraud)
- Rogers v. Holder, 636 So. 2d 645 (Miss. 1994) (absent fraud or intentional wrong, procedural irregularities will not void an election)