Sullivan v. Maddox
122 So. 3d 75
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Sullivan filed in 2005 a complaint in Simpson County Chancery to confirm and quiet title by adverse possession to about 11 acres, acknowledging no survey and that title was vested in the United States; Sullivan obtained a temporary injunction requiring Maddoxes to stay on their side of the fence.
- Maddoxes counterclaimed and later moved for summary judgment (2011), arguing the United States owns the land and no party may adverse-possess sovereign property; they supported this with a PLS affidavit from Charles Craft.
- Sullivan moved for the chancellor’s recusal in 2011; the motion failed for Rule 1.11 deficiencies, and the chancellor ruled the grounds did not show bias under Canon 3.
- At a May 3, 2011 hearing the chancellor denied recusal, and on May 25, 2011 granted summary judgment holding the United States had title to the property and the land was not subject to adverse possession; sanctions were to be considered.
- On June 15, 2011 the chancellor imposed sanctions awarding $42,922.91 in attorneys’ fees and costs to the Maddoxes against Sullivan and his counsel, Stubbs, for frivolous pleadings and conduct under Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act; Sullivan appealed the judgment alleging multiple errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear quiet-title claim against the United States | Sullivan contends chancery court had jurisdiction over adverse-possession claim | Maddoxes assert title vested in US; chancellor lacked jurisdiction against sovereign land | Chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; affirm summary judgment |
| Recusal denial and handling of new evidence | Sullivan argued chancellor erred in denying recusal and admitting new evidence | Maddoxes contend motion defective under Rule 1.11; no bias shown | No manifest error; recusal denial affirmed |
| Sanctions under Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act | Sullivan asserts sanctions were improper and violated due process | Sanctions supported by clear findings of frivolous filings and harassment | Sanctions affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- McClellan v. Kimball, 623 F.2d 83 (9th Cir. 1980) (federal law governs adverse-possession jurisdiction against the United States)
- Brown v. Johnson, 373 F.Supp. 973 (S.D.Tex. 1974) (federal jurisdiction principles in quiet-title context against US)
- United States v. Lemon, 632 F.Supp. 431 (D. Colo. 1986) (Congressional waiver of sovereign immunity conditioned against adverse possession)