 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. Greyhound Bus Lines9/5/2002
ration event, I understand the Defendant tendered the proceeds in accordance with that award and you refused to accept them?
BY MS. WILSON: Right. I did not agree with him.
Subsequently, during the same pre-hearing proceedings, Wilson attempted to explain to the trial judge that she had additional health problems since the arbitration hearing. She also questioned why her pre-existing injuries would have had any effect on the amount of the arbitrator's award. Additionally, Wilson unsuccessfully attempted to supplement the record on appeal by offering documents, including medical reports, which were never offered into evidence before the trial court. Also, during the evidentiary hearing, Wilson testified, under oath, as follows:
Q: Did you accept the check that Greyhound tendered to comply with the arbitrator's award?
A: No, sir.
Q: You advised your attorney, Judge Nixon, that you would not accept it and would not go through with it, didn't you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you have seen copies of correspondence where he advised me on behalf of Greyhound that you would not accept it and would not go through with it. Is that correct?
A: Yes, sir. For one thing, it doesn't even contain the amount of medical bills that I have incurred.
During the same hearing, Wilson later admitted under oath that she was dissatisfied with the arbitrator's award.
. In sum, while Wilson attacks the whole arbitration process, it is also obvious, that she was dissatisfied with the amount of the arbitrator's award, which was later confirmed by the trial court. Because Wilson appeals to this Court seeking more money than that allowed by the arbitrator and confirmed by the circuit judge, this Court is constrained, as a matter of law, to assess Wilson with the statutory 15% penalty, which assessment is mandatory, and not discretionary. Estate of Haynes v. Steele, 699 So.2d 918, 923-24 (Miss. 1997). While we are sensitive to fair treatment of pro se litigants on appeal, as this Court has stated on a previous occasion concerning another litigant (who sometimes proceeded, pro se), "this was hardly [Wilson's] maiden judicial voyage." We are aware of at least one other case involving Wilson which made it to this Court. See Wilson v. Allday, 487 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1986). Based on her prior litigation experience, including appeals to this Court, when Wilson chose to appeal to this Court, seeking at least in part, more money than that awarded by the arbitrator and confirmed by the trial court, she did so at her own peril. Accordingly, pursuant to the statute and case law, Wilson will be assessed the mandatory statutory 15% penalty on the $46,500 judgment in her favor for her unsuccessful appeal to this Court.
. Of course, one additional problem exists. Since neither party appealed with supersedeas, see M.R.A.P. 8(a), the judgment has been satisfied. Greyhound had interpled the disputed funds into the registry of the circuit court, and as previously stated herein, the record reveals that upon entry of the final judgment, the trial judge (correctly so) entered an order disbursing the interpled funds. In reality, there is no judgment to reduce by 15% based on Wilson's unsuccessful appeal. Accordingly, judgment must be entered here in favor of Greyhound and against Wilson in the amount of $6,975 (which amount equals 15% of the final judgment of $46,500).
CONCLUSION
. For these reasons, we find no reversible error on either the direct appeal or cross-appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment, and we affirm the trial court's refusal to award Greyhound its attorneys' fees and costs. Howeve
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|