 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maranatha Faith Center12/2/2004
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED -12/02/2004
. In February 2003, the Chancery Court of Lowndes County entered a final judgment against Maranatha Faith Center, Inc. (Maranatha), in favor of Colonial Trust Company (Colonial) in the amount of $876,753.08. By September, 2003, the judgment remained unsatisfied and Colonial thus levied execution on certain personal property found on Maranatha's premises and on Maranatha's chose in action styled Maranatha Faith Center, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., being assigned cause number 2002-0004-CV1 on the docket of the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Mississippi. Maranatha moved that the writ be quashed and that the execution be stayed. Following a denial of these motions, Maranatha appeals raising the following issues. We hold that a chose in action is subject to a writ of execution.
I. Whether an action for unliquidated damages can be executed upon by a judgment creditor and subsequently sold at public auction, possibly to a third party?
. This is a case of first impression and requires the Court to consider Mississippi Code §§ 11-7-7, 13-3-127 and 13-3-135 and several opinions, including Hunt v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 568 So. 2d 253, 255 (Miss. 1990)).
. Maranatha argues that a levy of execution upon a chose of action is not authorized by Mississippi law. Further, Maranatha argued to the chancellor, that a writ of execution based on a judgment lien may only be applied to the proceeds of a lawsuit and not the lawsuit itself. Maranatha also suggested that a writ of garnishment was the proper method to collect on a judgment lien from an ongoing lawsuit and that, per William Iselin & Co. v. Delta Auction & Real Estate Co., 433 So.2d 911 (Miss. 1983), a writ of execution cannot be applied to intangible property such as ongoing litigation. The chancellor disagreed and held that under §§ 11-7-7, 13-3-127 and 13-3-135 a chose in action is subject to a writ of execution.
. On appeal, Maranatha reasserts its earlier argument and claims that the chancellor's ruling is contrary to state law and unconstitutional according to Miss. Const., 1890, Art. 3, § 24. The Court disagrees.
. We have previously defined the term "chose in action. In Garrett v. Gay, 394 So.2d 321, 322 (Miss. 1981), we relied on 73 C.J.S. Property § 9 (1951) to state:
A "chose in action" means, literally, a thing in action, and is the right of bringing an action, or a right to recover a debt or money, or a right of proceeding in a court of law to procure the payment of a sum of money, or a right to recover a personal chattel or a sum of money by action, or, as it is defined by statute, a right to recover money or personal property by a judicial proceeding.
. Generally, any chose in action is assignable after the suit is filed. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-7 (Rev. 2004). See also Sneed v. Ford Motor Co., 735 So.2d 306, 311 (Miss. 1999); Kaplan v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co., 716 So.2d 673 (MisS.Ct. App. 1998). Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-7 provides in part: [that a]ny chose in action or any interest therein, after suit has been filed thereon, may be sold or assigned the same as other property, whether such claim or any interest therein was heretofore assignable under the laws of this state or not. (emphasis added). Until the enactment of statutory law, such was prohibited under the common law. Kaplan, 716 So.2d at 676 (collecting authorities).
. Maranatha seeks a narrow reading of the statutes germane to our review of assigning a chose in action. While it concedes that state law allows the assignment or sale of a chose in action, it maintains that because there is
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|