Wilton Acquisitions Corp. v. First Methodist Church of Biloxi, 85 So. 3d 319

Wilton Acquisitions Corp. signed a purchase agreement to acquire First Methodist Church property in Biloxi and paid $300,000 earnest money with a due-diligence period.
During due diligence asbestos was found; Wilton attempted to terminate and sought remedies including specific performance and damages.
Chancery Court set discovery deadlines; Wilton could not provide certain witnesses due to illness; motions to extend discovery were heard.
Wilton's deposition schedule issues led First Methodist to seek sanctions for discovery misconduct, including dismissal with prejudice.
Chancellor granted sanctions, dismissed Wilton's claims with prejudice, and certified the judgment as final under Rule 54(b) while reserving attorney’s fees/expenses for later ruling.
On appeal, Wilton challenged the Rule 54(b) certification and the dismissal, arguing the judgment was not final because attorney’s fees remained unresolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the Rule 54(b) finality certification proper given pending attorney’s fees?	Wilton argues dismissal with prejudice was certified final to permit appeal.	First Methodist contends the judgment was final and appealable under Rule 54(b).	Not final; Rule 54(b) certification improper because attorney’s fees remained unresolved.
Was the dismissal with prejudice for discovery misconduct properly supported on the record?	Wilton contends sanctions were inappropriate or overbroad.	First Methodist maintains dismissal with prejudice was warranted for Wilton’s discovery violations.	Court did not resolve merits on appeal due to lack of finality; sanction basis acknowledged but not outcome reviewed here.
What remedy is appropriate given the lack of finality?	Wilton seeks relief on the merits and a properly final judgment for appeal.	First Methodist seeks affirmance of sanctions and final judgment.	Remand to determine attorney’s fees and finalize the judgment consistent with Rule 54(b) requirements.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737 (1976) (Rule 54(b) finality not automatic by reciting language)
Chevis v. Miss. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., So.3d 187 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (Rule 54(b) finality requirements discussed)
Myatt v. Peco Foods of Mississippi, Inc., 22 So.3d 334 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (Piecing final judgments; caution against piecemeal appeals)
Parker v. Livingston, 817 So.2d 554 (Miss. 2002) (Remand for omitted issue in final judgment determination)
Precision Interlock Log Homes, Inc. v. O’Neal, 689 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1997) (Omission in final judgment remedied by remand)
Tupelo Redevelopment Agency v. Gray Corp., 972 So.2d 495 (Miss. 2007) (Attorneys’ fees factors for reasonableness; Rule 1.5 factors referenced)
Walters v. Walters, 956 So.2d 1050 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (Finality concerns with Rule 54(b) judgments; piecemeal appeals caution)
Laird v. ERA Bayshore Realty, 841 So.2d 178 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (Abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 54(b) review)
Colom Law Firm, LLC v. Bd. of Trustees, 16 So.3d 692 (Miss. 2009) (Rule 54(b) appealability considerations in Mississippi appellate practice)
Cox v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Friedrichs, Inc., 512 So.2d 897 (Miss. 1987) (Caution on certifying Rule 54(b) judgments)