IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2014-CA-01408-COA
JOSEPH EUGENE LAMBERTH APPELLANT
v.
SOUTH PANOLA SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/22/2014
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MITCHELL M. LUNDY JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: PANOLA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: CARLOS E. MOORE
DARRYL A. WILSON
TANGALA L. HOLLIS
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ELIZABETH LEE MARON
HOLMES S. ADAMS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DISMISSED ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
APPEAL PROPERLY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/16/2016
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE IRVING, P.J., BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. In 2014, the South Panola School Board unanimously terminated Joseph Eugene
Lamberth from his position as an assistant principal at South Panola High School in
Batesville, Mississippi. Lamberth appealed the Board’s decision timely but failed to file a
$200 bond as required by the governing statute. Because Lamberth failed to timely perfect
his appeal, the Panola County Chancery Court dismissed the action with prejudice. Finding
no error, we affirm the chancery court’s judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2. In 2013, Lamberth was accused of the following in relation to his employment as an
assistant principal at South Panola High School: (1) threatening a student; (2) using abusive,
vulgar, and profane language with a student; (3) behaving inappropriately; (4) exhibiting
unprofessional conduct and poor judgement; and (5) committing numerous general ethics
violations. After a hearing on the matter, the South Panola School District superintendent
recommended to the Board that Lamberth be terminated. On February 4, 2014, the Board
unanimously upheld the recommendation, and Lamberth was discharged.
¶3. According to the governing statute, Lamberth had twenty days to file a petition in the
chancery court challenging the Board’s decision and to file a $200 bond payable to the Board
for the costs of the appeal. On February 21, 2014, Lamberth filed his appellate petition in
the chancery court, but failed to pay the $200 bond. Lamberth asserts that he was unaware
of the requirement to pay the bond.
¶4. Regardless, the district filed a motion to dismiss the action for Lamberth’s failure to
pay the bond. Meanwhile, Lamberth requested a twenty-day extension to perfect his appeal.
The request was denied, and the chancery court subsequently dismissed the action with
prejudice. Aggrieved, Lamberth now appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶5. The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. Breland v. Harrison
Cty. Sch. Bd., 96 So. 3d 61, 64 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citations omitted). The applicable
statute for appeals of school-board actions states the following:
(1) Any employee aggrieved by a final decision of the school board is entitled
to judicial review thereof, as hereinafter provided.
2
(2) An appeal may be taken by such employee to the chancery court of the
judicial district in which the school district is located, by filing a petition with
the clerk of that court and executing and filing bond payable to the school
board with sufficient sureties, in the penalty of not less that (t)wo (h)undred
(d)ollars ($200.00), conditioned upon the payment of all of the costs of appeal,
within twenty (20) days of the receipt of the final decision of the board.
Miss. Code Ann. § 37-9-113(1)-(2) (Rev. 2013).
¶6. As seen above, the statute clearly outlines the need for the filing of a $200 “bond
payable to the school board with sufficient sureties.” Id. We have previously addressed this
exact issue of whether the failure of a movant to file the $200 bond warranted dismissal of
the appeal. In Breland, we held: “Breland’s failure to file a timely bond is jurisdictional and
is fatal to her appeal. This Court repeatedly has held that statutory appeal bonds are
jurisdictional – that is, they relate to a court’s appellate jurisdiction.” Breland, 96 So. 3d at
65-66 (¶12) (quoting 5K Farms Inc. v. Miss. Dep’t of Revenue, 94 So. 3d 221, 227 (¶23)
(Miss. 2012)). That said, the Mississippi Supreme Court “has recognized that a failure to
meet the statutory requirements (of a bond) may be excused by extenuating circumstances.”
Miss. State Pers. Bd. v. Armstrong, 454 So. 2d 912, 915 (Miss. 1984) (citations omitted).
However, as was the case in Armstrong, we fail to find any extenuating circumstances that
would warrant overlooking Lamberth’s failure to pay the statutorily required bond.
Lamberth’s excuse is merely that he was not aware that a bond needed to be filed, despite the
distinct and unambiguous statutory language requiring the bond payment. Citing a long-held
tenet of law, we remind Lamberth that “ignorance of the law excuses no one.” Hoskins v.
Howard, 214 Miss. 481, 497, 59 So. 2d 263, 269 (1952). Hence, the chancery court properly
dismissed Lamberth’s appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, and we affirm the dismissal.
3
¶7. The question then turns to Lamberth’s challenge regarding the dismissal with
prejudice. There is nothing in the statute itself demanding that failure to file the bond money
mandates a dismissal with prejudice. Likewise, the law cited by the district regarding
extensions of appellate filing times centers on the filing of “a notice of appeal,” not the filing
of a bond or another technical matter associated with an appeal. See M.R.A.P. 4(g). Is it
undisputed that Lamberth’s notice of appeal or petition to appeal was filed timely.
¶8. Meanwhile, Lamberth cites to Mississippi Code Annotated section 15-1-69 (Rev.
2012) for the proposition that Lamberth “may commence a new action for the same cause,
at any time within one year after the abatement or other determination of the original suit.”
However, as noted by the school district, the title for section 15-1-69 references the
“commencement of a new action,” not the refiling of an appeal.
¶9. Nonetheless, the issue regarding failure to file a statutory bond has been addressed in
the context of a circuit-court appeal, and has been found to be a subject-matter-jurisdiction
bar. See Carney v. Moore, 130 Miss. 658, 94 So. 890, 891 (1923); Humphreys v.
McFarland, 48 So. 182, 182 (Miss. 1909). We see no reason why the same theory would not
be analogous to a chancery-court appeal. A total failure to file the bond required by the
statute renders an appellate court, in this case a chancery court, without authority to review
the case, and is fatal to the appeal. Accordingly, the chancery court did not err in its
judgment.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE PANOLA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
4
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR AND
WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. JAMES, J., CONCURS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE
WRITTEN OPINION. GREENLEE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
5