IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2006-CA-01786-SCT
A. JENNINGS COX, JR.
v.
MARGARET LOUISE (PEGGY) COX
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/29/2006
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KENNETH M. BURNS
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOSEPH N. STUDDARD
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: GARY L. GEESLIN
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/28/2008
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE WALLER, P.J., DICKINSON AND LAMAR, JJ.
WALLER, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This is a dispute between siblings over an inter vivos transfer of property by a mother
to a daughter. Finding that the Chancery Court of Lowndes County did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the son’s case for failure to prosecute, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. On August 4, 1992, Louise R. Cox executed a Warranty Deed which transferred
approximately 281 acres in Lowndes County, Mississippi, to her daughter Margaret Louise
(Peggy) Cox. Peggy employed attorney Shields Sims to prepare the necessary legal
documents to convey the 281 acres and accompanied Louise, an 88-year-old widow at the
time, to Sims’s law office to execute the deed. Prior to the execution of the deed, the 281
acres were to pass under Louise’s will to her children, Peggy and A. Jennings Cox, Jr., in
equal shares.1
¶3. On November 5, 1992, Jennings filed, on Louise’s behalf, a lis pendens notice and
complaint against Peggy to set aside the deed.2 The complaint alleged that Peggy had used
false representations and exerted undue influence upon Louise to execute the deed.3 In an
affidavit attached to the complaint, Louise stated that the conveyance had been a mistake and
that she had not intended to disrupt the testamentary disposition of the 281 acres. However,
just one month later, on December 3, 1992, Louise filed a letter in the chancery court which
stated that Jennings’s attorney, J. Joshua Stevens, Jr., never had her consent to file the
complaint against Peggy and requested that the suit be dropped.
¶4. On August 23, 1993, Louise’s deposition was taken by Shields Sims, as attorney for
Peggy, primarily for the purpose of establishing that Louise did not consent to be a named
plaintiff in the complaint filed by Jennings. Louise gave inconsistent statements and
1
Under Louise’s will, Peggy was to receive Louise’s home and all the contents
thereof. The rest and residue of Louise’s estate, both real and personal property, were to go
to Peggy and Jennings in equal shares. Prior to Louise’s will dated January 21, 1976, both
Peggy and Jennings had received inter vivos transfers of property from their parents. Peggy
received 237.5 acres in a deed dated November 13, 1970. Jennings received about 400 acres
of farmland in a deed dated November 13, 1970, another 70 acres in a deed dated November
13, 1970, and approximately 240 acres in a deed dated August 31, 1973.
2
Although the complaint was brought in the name of Louise R. Cox, neither party
contests that the action was filed by Jennings on his mother’s behalf.
3
Jennings would later file an amended complaint and a second amended complaint,
among other pleadings, the discussion of which is not necessary for consideration of this
appeal.
2
exhibited signs of confusion throughout her deposition.4 Louise stated that she never
intended to sue anyone and that she did not want Peggy to deed the 281 acres back to her.
But later on, she said that at the time she went to the office of attorney J. Joshua Stevens, Jr.,
she “thought it was best” to put the deed dispute before a judge. Louise was dismissed as a
party by order dated June 22, 1994.
¶5. On November 27, 1996, Peggy filed a motion for protection to prevent Jennings from
further deposing her. No further action occurred on the suit until December 17, 2003, when
two orders were entered, one assigning the case to Chancellor Kenneth M. Burns and one
substituting attorney Gary L. Geeslin as Peggy’s counsel.
¶6. Jennings filed nothing on his claim from November 25, 1996, when he filed his
Amended Notice of Deposition, until June 3, 2005, when he served Peggy with
interrogatories and requests for production of documents.5 After initially attempting to quash
Jennings’s interrogatories and requests for production, Peggy filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to prosecute on October 5, 2005.6
4
At one point, Louise stated that she had three children, one of whom was named
Walter. Yet, Peggy and Jennings were Louise’s only two children. Additionally, Louise
stated that she had been to the camp house located on the 281 acres with her husband in the
prior year. However, Louise’s husband had died years earlier.
5
In his Motion for Reconsideration, for a New Trial, or for Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, Jennings attached correspondence dated from February 23, 2001, to
November 22, 2002, which documented apparent settlement negotiations during some
periods of the dormancy. However, the chancellor refused to consider this “voluminous
correspondence,” because it could not be considered newly discovered evidence.
6
Almost seven years and one month passed from the time Peggy filed her Motion for
Protection on November 27, 1996, until the two orders were entered on December 17, 2003.
Approximately eight years and six months passed from November 27, 1996, until Jennings
served Peggy with interrogatories and requests for production of documents on June 3, 2005.
3
¶7. On January 25, 2006, the chancellor entered an order denying Peggy’s motion to
dismiss, but reserved the right to dismiss the case later, depending on the proof. In
overruling Peggy’s motion to dismiss, the chancellor noted that the clerk had not moved to
dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 41(d)7 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and,
therefore, the first notice that Jennings had of a possible dismissal came from Peggy. The
chancellor also found that most of the delay in bringing the case to trial was not Jennings’s
fault, but that of others. Notwithstanding these findings, the chancellor stated that he
“reserves the right to later dismiss the case if the delay is prejudicial to [Peggy] and also
reserves the right to impose sanctions if the Court deems appropriate.”
¶8. A trial was held on July 24-25, 2006. At the conclusion of Jennings’s case-in-chief,
Peggy renewed her motion to dismiss based on Jennings’s failure to prosecute and failure to
show a right to relief. The chancellor issued a bench opinion in which he granted Peggy’s
motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to prosecute. The chancellor cited the extensive
delay and found that such delay had prejudiced Peggy due to the unavailability of Louise,
7
Rule 41(d)(1) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:
In all civil actions wherein there has been no action of record during the
preceding twelve months, the clerk of the court shall mail notice to the
attorneys of record that such case will be dismissed by the court for want of
prosecution unless within thirty days following said mailing, action of record
is taken or an application in writing is made to the court and good cause shown
why it should be continued as a pending case. If action of record is not taken
or good cause is not shown, the court shall dismiss each such case without
prejudice.
Miss. R. Civ. P. 41(d)(1).
4
physicians who could have examined Louise before trial, and former family attorney Robin
Weaver.8 The chancellor entered a Final Judgment on August 1, 2006, dismissing Jennings’s
Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
¶9. Jennings filed a motion for reconsideration, for a new trial or for findings of fact and
conclusions of law, which the chancellor denied on September 15, 2006. Jennings then filed
a timely notice of appeal with this Court.
¶10. Jennings raises two issues on appeal: (I) whether the chancellor abused his discretion
by dismissing Jennings’s claim for failure to prosecute pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b); and (II) whether the chancellor erred in failing to “find the facts specially
and state separately [his] conclusions of law thereon” as requested by Jennings.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶11. In reviewing a trial court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b),
this Court will reverse only if it finds the trial court abused its discretion. AT&T v. Days Inn
of Winona, 720 So. 2d 178, 180 (Miss. 1998) (citing Wallace v. Jones, 572 So. 2d 371, 375
(Miss. 1986)).
¶12. This Court reviews a lower court’s decision not to make specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law on an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Tricon Metals & Services, Inc.
v. Topp, 516 So. 2d 236, 239 (Miss. 1987).
DISCUSSION
8
Attorney Robin Weaver had prepared Louise’s Last Will and Testament, and had
prepared deeds for certain inter vivos transfers of property to both children during the
lifetime of Louise’s husband, A. J. Cox, Sr.
5
I. Whether the chancellor abused his discretion by dismissing Jennings’s claim for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
¶13. Rule 41(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move
for the dismissal of an action “[f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute . . . .” Miss. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). The power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is granted not only by Rule 41(b), but
is part of a trial court’s inherent authority and is necessary for “the orderly expedition of
justice and the court’s control of its own docket.” AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 180 (quoting
Wallace, 572 So. 2d at 375; Watson v. Lillard, 493 So. 2d 1277, 1278 (Miss. 1986)).
¶14. What constitutes failure to prosecute is considered on a case-by-case basis. AT&T,
720 So. 2d at 181 (citing Wallace, 572 So. 2d at 376). In AT&T, this Court set forth
considerations to be weighed in determining whether to affirm a dismissal with prejudice
under Rule 41(b): (1) whether there was a “a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct
by the plaintiff”; (2) whether lesser sanctions may have better served the interests of justice;
and (3) the existence of other “aggravating factors.” AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 181 (citing Rogers
v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1982)).
A. Clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.
¶15. In dismissing Jennings’s claim, the chancellor stated that the case had been on file for
nearly fourteen years and that there had been “some prejudice” to Peggy as a result of the
delay. Jennings argues that the chancellor relied primarily on the passage of time and that
factors other than delay must be present to warrant dismissal under Rule 41(b).
¶16. Cases from both this Court and the Court of Appeals indicate that factors other than
delay typically are present when a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) is upheld. See
6
Hoffman v. Paracelsus Health Care Corp., 752 So. 2d 1030, 1034-35 (Miss. 1999)
(dismissal improper); AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 181-82 (dismissal improper); Watson, 493 So.
2d at 1279-80 (dismissal affirmed); Tolliver ex rel. Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Green,
2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 467, 20-23 (Miss. Ct. App. July, 17 2007) (dismissal affirmed);
Hensarling v. Holly, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 396, 7-11 (Miss. Ct. App. June 5, 2007)
(dismissal affirmed); Hine v. Anchor Lake Prop. Owners Ass’n, 911 So. 2d 1001, 1004-07
(Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (dismissal affirmed); Camacho v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc., 862 So.
2d 540, 543-44 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (dismissal improper); Lone Star Casino Corp. v. Full
House Resorts, Inc., 796 So. 2d 1031, 1032-33 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (dismissal improper).
¶17. Nevertheless, factors other than delay are not required. The standard is whether there
is “a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff. . . .” AT&T, 720 So.
2d at 181 (emphasis added); see also Hine, 911 So. 2d at 1005 (where a clear record of delay
has been shown, there is no need for a showing of contumacious conduct). “Aggravating
factors” serve to “bolster” the case for dismissal, but are not required. AT&T, 720 So. 2d at
181 (citing Rogers, 669 F.2d at 320).
¶18. Even though delay alone may suffice, the chancellor relied both on the passage of time
and his finding of prejudice in dismissing Jennings’s claim. The chancellor had specifically
reserved the right to dismiss the case if prejudice were found. It was the chancellor’s later
finding of prejudice—not the passage of time alone—that tipped the balance in favor of
dismissal.
7
¶19. Jennings further argues that he has not been guilty of any “delay or contumacious
conduct,” but consistently has pursued his claim. Jennings points out that he has been through
four attorneys as part of his effort to advance the case.9
¶20. Efforts to secure substitute counsel may constitute excusable delay. Cf. Watson, 493
So. 2d at 1279 (lack of counsel not permissible delay where plaintiff materially contributed
to the delay); see also Morris v. Ocean Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 248, 249, 253 (5th Cir. 1984)
(delay of eight months included efforts to secure substitute counsel); Camacho, 862 So. 2d
at 544 (delay of five months in acquiring counsel); Lone Star Casino Corp., 796 So. 2d at
1033 (delay of twenty months in acquiring counsel). However, the delay in this case is
significant—approximately seven years and one month in which no activity occurred on the
docket and almost nine years in which Jennings took no action on the case.
¶21. Jennings asserts that settlement discussions were ongoing between the parties during
the dormancy period. Settlement efforts also may constitute excusable delay. See Morris,
730 F.2d at 252-53; see also GCIU Employer Retirement Fund v. Chicago Tribune Co., 8
F.3d 1195, 1200 (7th Cir. 1993); EEOC v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 626 F. Supp. 90,
94 (M.D. Ga. 1985); but see Rovner v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 29 F.R.D. 488, 490 (E.
D. Penn. 1962) (“active prosecution of a case can be expected to leave footprints on the
docket.”). However, “the pendency of negotiations is not an excuse where the delay is
9
Jennings testified that his attorney J. Joshua Stevens, Jr., had been too busy and that
H. Lee Morrison, Jr., began to work on the case. Jennings stated that after Morrison’s death,
he secured the counsel of Thomas L. Kesler, who eventually had to withdraw. Whether
Morrison’s death was the actual cause of Jennings obtaining new counsel is disputed.
Jennings then approached Joseph N. Studdard in June of 2004 and obtained his services.
8
unreasonably long . . . or if it continues after it is apparent that the negotiations would not be
fruitful.” GCIU Employer Ret. Fund, 8 F.3d at 1200 (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,
626 F. Supp. at 94).
¶22. Even assuming that informal settlement discussions took place during the significant
period of inactivity, Jennings should have abandoned settlement efforts and pursued litigation
on his claim when it became apparent that negotiations were unyielding.
B. Lesser sanctions.
¶23. Jennings argues that the chancellor failed to consider lesser sanctions and that Peggy
failed to propose such lesser sanctions to the chancellor.
¶24. This Court must consider whether lesser sanctions would better serve the interests of
justice. AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 181. Lesser sanctions include “‘fines, costs, or damages against
plaintiff or his counsel, attorney disciplinary measures, conditional dismissal, dismissal
without prejudice, and explicit warnings.’” Id. at 181-82 (quoting Wallace, 572 So. 2d at
377). This Court is less likely to uphold a Rule 41(b) dismissal “[w]here there is no indication
in the record that the lower court considered any alternative sanctions . . . .” AT&T, 720 So.
2d at 181 (citing, e.g., Rogers, 669 F.2d at 321-22).
¶25. The fact that lesser sanctions were argued before the chancellor, that the chancellor
considered all arguments prior to granting dismissal, and that the chancellor denied Jennings’s
motion for reconsideration, in which Jennings argued that lesser sanctions had not been
9
considered, is sufficient to show that lesser sanctions were considered and rejected.10 See
Hine, 911 So. 2d at 1005.
¶26. We also find that lesser sanctions would not suffice under these circumstances because
lesser sanctions could not cure the prejudice to Peggy caused by the delay.
C. Aggravating factors.
¶27. Jennings contends that no aggravating factors are present in this case. “Aggravating
factors” include “the extent to which the plaintiff, as distinguished from his counsel, was
personally responsible for the delay, the degree of actual prejudice to the defendant, and
whether the delay was the result of intentional conduct.” AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 181 (quoting
Rogers, 669 F.2d at 320). While “aggravating factors” are not required, the presence of such
factors strengthens the case for dismissal under Rule 41(b). AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 181 (citing
Rogers, 669 F.2d at 320); see Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 418 (5th
Cir. 2006).
10
Citing the Court of Appeals’ decision in Hensarling v. Holly, 2007 Miss. App.
LEXIS 396 (Miss. Ct. App. June 5, 2007), Peggy argues that when a trial judge does not
make a record finding with regard to the issue of lesser sanctions, those findings are to be
presumed. Drawing from this Court’s decision in Watson, the Court of Appeals stated that
where the record does not indicate that the trial judge considered lesser sanctions, a
presumption must be made that the trial judge found lesser sanctions to be insufficient. Id.
at 10 (citing Watson, 493 So. 2d at 1279); see also Hine, 911 So. 2d at 1005 (citing Watson,
493 So. 2d at 1279). However, the application of this “presumption” in Watson did not
involve a trial court’s consideration of lesser sanctions. Watson, 493 So. 2d at 1279.
We are less likely to uphold a Rule 41(b) dismissal where there is no indication in the
record that lesser sanctions were considered. AT&T, 720 So. 2d at 181. Accordingly,
consideration of lesser sanctions cannot be presumed, but there should be some indication
in the record that lesser sanctions were considered.
10
i. Extent to which Jennings, as distinguished from his counsel, was
personally responsible for the delay.
¶28. Jennings contends that he was not personally responsible for the delay. Jennings
testified that Peggy’s counsel had prolonged his efforts to move the case forward by
continually “refusing to show or produce what was requested . . .” and canceling hearings and
other meetings. Jennings stated that he called each of his attorneys “[n]o less than every
week” and asked them to move the case forward. Additionally, in his order overruling
Peggy’s initial motion to dismiss, the chancellor found that “most of the delay occasioned in
bringing this case to trial was not [Jennings], but others . . . .”
¶29. Where a litigant has not been an active participant in the fault, the sanction of dismissal
with prejudice should be a last resort. See Flaksa v. Little River Marine Constr. Co., 389
F.2d 885, 889 n.11 (5th Cir. 1968). While a client may be held accountable for his attorney’s
conduct, many courts have imposed lesser sanctions than dismissal where fault lies with the
attorney rather than the client. Rogers, 669 F.2d at 322 (citing Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370
U.S. 626, 633-34, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1390, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734, 740 (1962); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2370, at 201 n.86 (1971)).
¶30. While the chancellor found that most of the delay was not attributable to Jennings
individually, he also stated that Jennings bore the obligation to prosecute the case to a
conclusion and that “he who seeks equity must be vigilant.” See Last Will and Testament of
Winding v. Estate of Winding, 783 So. 2d 707, 711 (Miss. 2001) (citing In re Estate of
Davis, 510 So. 2d 798, 800 (Miss. 1987)).
11
¶31. We agree that Jennings must bear some responsibility for an almost nine-year period
in which no substantive action was taken.
ii. Degree of actual prejudice to Peggy.
¶32. Jennings contends that Peggy failed to prove actual prejudice and could show only the
possibility of prejudice. Peggy, on the other hand, claims that the delay in this case is per se
prejudicial because the passage of time alters physical evidence and impairs the memory of
witnesses.
¶33. In his bench opinion, the chancellor cited three ways the unavailability of witnesses
caused “some prejudice” to Peggy: (1) the unavailability of Louise, who was now deceased;
(2) the unavailability of physicians who might have examined Louise before trial; (3) and the
unavailability of long-time family attorney Robin Weaver. The unavailability of witnesses
who could have provided valuable testimony may prejudice a defendant. See Hoffman, 752
So. 2d at 1035.
a. Unavailability of Louise.
¶34. Rule 32(a)(3) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure allows a deposition to be
used by any party for any purpose if the court finds that the witness is dead. Miss. R. Civ. P.
32(a)(3). Additionally, Rule 804(b)(1) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides that
when a witness is unavailable, a deposition taken in the course of the same proceeding may
be offered provided that “the party against whom the testimony is now offered, . . . had an
opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect
examination.” M.R.E. 801(b)(1). In Lone Star Casino Corp. v. Full House Resorts, Inc.,
the Court of Appeals found that a defendant was not prejudiced by the inability of a witness
12
to testify in person, so long as all parties had an opportunity to pose questions and cross-
examine the witness at the depositions. Lone Star Casino Corp., 796 So. 2d at 1033.
¶35. Apparently in reaction to Louise being named as a party plaintiff with her son,
Jennings, Peggy’s lawyer deposed Louise on August 23, 1993. The testimony elicited from
Louise established that she did not authorize a suit against her daughter (Peggy), that she did
not want to sue her daughter, and that she wanted to be removed from the lawsuit. While she
did answer questions about the deed, bank account, and other issues addressed in Jennings’s
lawsuit, the purpose of the deposition was primarily to show that she did not join in or
authorize Jennings’s lawsuit. The purpose of the deposition was not to conduct discovery or
elicit testimony for trial on the issues framed in Jennings’s claim.
¶36. Louise’s deposition ultimately was recessed due to objections to improper leading by
Jennings’s counsel.11 Subsequently, on June 22, 1994, an order dismissed Louise as a party
to the litigation.
¶37. Because of the limited scope of Louise’s deposition, which was never completed, we
agree with the chancellor’s finding of prejudice to Peggy because of Louise’s intervening
death.12
b. Unavailability of physicians who could have examined Louise
before trial.
11
The chancellor overruled Peggy’s objection in an order dated December 28, 1993.
12
In his bench opinion, the chancellor stated that Louise’s unavailability prejudiced
Peggy because “sometimes when you take a deposition, you have a different strategy than
what you would have at trial.” Given the purpose and scope of Louise’s deposition, Peggy
most likely would have employed a different strategy at trial.
13
¶38. The chancellor also found that Peggy suffered prejudice because “physicians that might
have examined [Louise] before [trial] are not available.” We are unable to find a basis for
such a finding in the record.
¶39. The relevant time for considering Louise’s mental capacity is on the date of execution
of the deed, not any time thereafter. See Mullins v. Ratcliff, 515 So. 2d 1183, 1195 (Miss.
1987); Smith v. Smith, 574 So. 2d 644, 654 (Miss. 1990). There is testimony from Peggy that
she took Louise to the doctor prior to the date that the deed was executed. But, there is no
evidence that such doctor(s) had any knowledge with respect to Louise’s mental condition on
the date the deed was executed, or that such doctor(s), if he or she had such knowledge, was
unavailable.
¶40. Considering the present state of the record, we cannot say that Peggy suffered
prejudice because of the unavailability of physicians who could have examined Louise before
trial.13
c. Unavailability of Robin Weaver.
¶41. The chancellor found that Peggy was prejudiced because of the unavailability of long-
time family attorney Robin Weaver. Jennings contends that Weaver could not testify as to
any relevant issue in this case because Weaver had no involvement in drafting the deed.
Peggy asserts that Weaver could have impeached Jennings’s testimony regarding Jennings’s
13
While not relevant to the issue of prejudice, the testimony of two physicians, or one
physician and a psychologist, would have been required to establish a conservatorship for
Louise. See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-13-255.
14
alleged alteration of a separate deed in an unrelated transaction in Sunflower County that did
not involve Peggy or Louise.14
¶42. Under Rule 608(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, Robin Weaver could not have
testified about the Sunflower property deed. Such testimony would be an effort to prove
specific instances of conduct through extrinsic evidence in order to impeach Jennings.
Therefore, we find that the unavailability of Robin Weaver could not have prejudiced Peggy.
d. Presumed prejudice.
¶43. Peggy argues that the passage of time in this case is per se prejudicial. Peggy claims
that her own testimony as an adverse witness at trial was impaired due to the passage of time
in this case.
¶44. Prejudice may be presumed from unreasonable delay. Rogers, 669 F.2d at 322 n.7
(quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2370, at 216-17
(1971)). However, the preference for a decision on the merits “must be weighed against any
presumed prejudice to the defendant and the court may decide to excuse plaintiff’s lack of
diligence in the absence of any actual prejudice to the defendant.” Rogers, 669 F.2d at 322
n.7 (quoting 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2370, at 216-17
(1971)).
¶45. Nothing in the record indicates that the passage of time altered any physical evidence.
However, one of Jennings’s witnesses, Jimmy Wilder, stated that he had difficulty
14
As part of her effort to impeach Jennings, Peggy offered a deed describing twelve
lots in Sunflower, Mississippi. Peggy argued that Jennings had removed his own name as
grantee on the deed in order to avoid paying capital gains taxes. Peggy asserts that Robin
Weaver could have testified about this Sunflower deed.
15
remembering events that had transpired so long ago. Given the length of time that passed in
this case, and the effect that time has on the memory of witnesses, we find that Peggy is due
some measure of presumed prejudice.
iii. Whether the delay was the result of intentional conduct.
¶46. Jennings submits that no proof was shown that the delay was intentional. We agree.
D. Whether dismissal was appropriate given the procedural posture of this
case.
¶47. Jennings raises a number of additional arguments why Rule 41(b) dismissal was
inappropriate. Jennings contends that there is no Rule 41(b) dismissal case from Mississippi
in which a plaintiff attempted to move the case forward by filing additional discovery requests
or a motion for trial setting, and then faced dismissal for failure to prosecute.
¶48. The procedural posture of this case is unique. However, there have been prior cases
before this Court and the Court of Appeals in which Rule 41(b) dismissals were granted in the
lower court even after the plaintiff tried to advance the case. Miss. Dep’t of Human Servs.
v. Helton, 741 So. 2d 240, 241 (Miss. 1999) (motion to dismiss filed on the date of trial);
Lone Star, 796 So. 2d at 1032 (motion to dismiss filed in response to plaintiff’s motion to
substitute counsel). In both Helton and Lone Star, the lower court’s Rule 41(b) dismissal
ultimately was reversed on appeal. Helton, 741 So. 2d at 241; Lone Star, 796 So. 2d at 1033.
However, the timing of the Rule 41(b) motions was not a basis for reversal in those cases. See
id.
¶49. Jennings also submits that there is no Mississippi case in which a dismissal for failure
to prosecute was granted during the trial. In this case, the chancellor granted dismissal for
16
failure to prosecute after Jennings had presented his case-in-chief. Jennings correctly points
out that involuntary dismissal is not appropriate where the merits of a case have been
considered. Wallace, 572 So. 2d at 376. However, in denying Peggy’s pre-trial motion to
dismiss, the chancellor had reserved the right to dismiss the case later if he found that the
delay had prejudiced Peggy.
¶50. Jennings argues further that it would be “incongruous for the plaintiff to have taken the
first action toward having the matter set for trial and then reward the defendant for her failure
to do so.” Yet the responsibility to prosecute a case rests with the plaintiff, not the defendant.
See Miss. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
¶51. While a fine balance must be struck between the interests of having a case tried on the
merits and the interests of judicial economy, we find that the chancellor did not abuse his
discretion in dismissing this case.
II. Whether the chancellor erred in failing to “find the facts specially and state
separately [his] conclusions of law thereon” as requested by Jennings.
¶52. Jennings requests that the case be remanded for specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Jennings points to Rule 52(a) which states that “in all actions tried upon
the facts without a jury the court may, and shall upon the request of any party . . . find the
facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.” Miss. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
¶53. Jennings raised this issue in his motion for reconsideration, for a new trial, or for
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The chancellor determined that his bench opinion had
been made a part of the record and that such opinion articulated sufficient findings of fact and
17
conclusions of law to support his decision. Thus, the chancellor declined to make any further
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
¶54. Rule 41(b) provides that “[i]f the court renders judgment on the merits against the
plaintiff, the court may make findings as provided in Rule 52(a).” Miss. R. Civ. P. 41(b)
(emphasis added) (with certain exceptions, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) operates as an
adjudication on the merits). Thus, Rule 41(b) makes specific findings of fact and conclusions
of law discretionary with the trial court.
¶55. We find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in refusing to provide specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The chancellor’s bench opinion was sufficient to
explain and support his adjudication of the matter.
CONCLUSION
¶56. We hold that chancellor did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the second amended
complaint of A. Jennings Cox, Jr., under Rule 41(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil
Procedure, for failure to prosecute. Furthermore, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion
in not providing specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Therefore, we affirm.
¶57. AFFIRMED.
SMITH, C.J., DIAZ, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH
AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
18