William T. White v. Patsy B. White

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2018-CP-00353-COA

WILLIAM T. WHITE APPELLANT

v.

PATSY B. WHITE APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/21/2017
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MICHAEL M. TAYLOR
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM T. WHITE (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: PAUL E. ROGERS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/22/2020
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.

BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. William White appealed from the county court’s order of eviction to the Pike County

Circuit Court. White failed to pay the cost bond within the statutorily required thirty days,

and we therefore affirm the dismissal of White’s appeal because the circuit court lacked

appellate jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

¶2. White argues that the circuit court committed manifest error and abused its discretion

in dismissing his appeal and for dismissing it without first sending him a notice-of-deficiency

letter. See M.R.A.P. 2(a)(2). The Mississippi Supreme Court addressed these precise issues

in Belmont Holdings LLC v. Davis Monuments LLC, 253 So. 3d 323 (Miss. 2018). As in the
present case, Belmont Holdings (Belmont) filed an appeal from a county court’s judgment

with the circuit court, but the circuit court dismissed the appeal due to Belmont’s failure to

pay the cost bond within thirty days as required under Mississippi Code Annotated section

11-51-79 (Rev. 2012). Id. at 326 (¶13). Noting that “[a] cost bond is jurisdictional because

it is a statutory requirement for an appeal,” the supreme court determined that the circuit

court lacked appellate jurisdiction. Id. at 329-30 (¶¶25, 28). The Belmont court further

rejected the argument that the failure to perfect an appeal by paying the cost bond was a

“deficiency,” requiring notice under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 2(a)(2). Id. at

331 (¶32). “Belmont was not deprived of due process when its appeal was dismissed without

notice under Rule (2)(a)(2) because its failure was not a procedural deficiency; rather, its

appeal was dismissed for its failure to comply with the statutory jurisdictional requirement

of timely paying the cost bond.” Id. at (¶33).

¶3. Accordingly, as the circuit court lacked appellate jurisdiction, we find no error in the

court’s dismissal of White’s appeal.1

¶4. AFFIRMED.

CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, McDONALD,
LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ., CONCUR.

1
On July 31, 2018, White filed a 26-page pro se motion raising a variety of matters
including those which would ordinarily be contained in the appellant’s brief. Out of an
abundance of caution, we passed the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal.
None of the arguments or requests contained in the motion alters our determination that the
circuit court properly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the motion as moot.

2