E-Filed Document Dec :47: CA Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. No.2016-TS-00928

Transcription

1 E-Filed Document Dec :47: CA Pages: 21 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No.2016-TS CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. VS. vs. ARTHUR E. WOOD, III, AND PAULA WOOD APPELLANT APPELLEES LEES APPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN OF WAYNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. J. Richard Barry (MSB #2077) James C. Griffin (MSB #104566) BARRY, THAGGARD, MAY & BAILEY, LLP 505 Constitution Ave. Post Office Box 2009 Meridian, Mississippi, Telephone: (601) Facsimile: (601) griffin(a)btmblaw.com Attorneys for Appellant, Ray McCarty, Jr.

2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No TS CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. APPELLANT vs. ARTHUR E. WOOD, III, AND PAULA WOOD APPELLEES APPEAL FROM THE SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN OF WAYNE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT CURTIS RAY MCCARTY, JR. J. Richard Barry (MSB #2077) James C. Griffin (MSB #104566) BARRY, THAGGARD, MAY & BAILEY, LLP 505 Constitution Ave. Post Office Box 2009 Meridian, Mississippi, Telephone: (601) Facsimile: (601) Attorneys for Appella11t, Ray McCarty, Jr.

3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. Those representations are made in order that the Justices of the Supreme Court and/or Judges ofthe Court of Appeals may evaluate possible disqualifications or recusal. 1. Honorable Lester F. Williamson Judge, Special Court of Eminent Domain, Wayne County, MS 500 Constitution Ave. Meridian, MS Honorable Terry L. Caves Caves & Caves, PLLC 525 North Fourth Avenue Laurel, MS Attorney for Appellees Arthur E. Wood, III and Paula Wood 3. Honorable Risher G. Caves Caves & Caves, PLLC 525 North Fourth Avenue Laurel, MS Attorney for Appellees Arthur E. Wood, III and Paula Wood 4. Honorable J. Richard Barry Barry, Thaggard, May & Bailey, LLP 505 Constitution Ave Meridian, MS Attorney for Appellant Curtis Ray McCarty, Jr. 5. Honorable James C. Griffin Barry, Thaggard, May & Bailey, LLP 505 Constitution Ave Meridian, MS Attorney for Appellant Curtis Ray McCarty, Jr. 6. Curtis Ray McCarty, Jr., Appellant 1475 Chicora River Road Buckatunna, MS i

4 7. Arthur E. Wood, III, Appellee 7929 Hwy 84 East Waynesboro, MS Paula Wood, Appellee 7929 Hwy 84 East Waynesboro, MS Joseph Tullos Bryan Nelson, P.A. 109 Fairfield Drive Hattiesburg, MS Attorney for Plum Creek South Central Timberland, LLC (Trial court proceedings only) So certified this the 15'h day of December, /s/ James C. Griffin James C. Griffin (MSB #104566) BARRY, THAGGARD, MAY & BAILEY, LLP 505 Constitution Ave. Post Office Box 2009 Meridian, Mississippi, Telephone: (601) Facsimile: (601) Attorney for Appellant, Curtis Ray McCarty, Jr. I!

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES... i TABLE OF CONTENTS... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... iv STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES....I STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 5 ARGUMENT... 6 I. The Special Court of Eminent Domain for Wayne County, Mississippi, erred in its granting of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. The doctrine ofresjudicata, and specifically the "merger" principle cited by the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Wayne County, Mississippi, does not bar Appellant's claim for Condemnation of Real Property and Establishment of a Private Road pursuant to Miss. Code Ann II. The Special Court of Eminent Domain for Wayne County, Mississippi, erred in its granting of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. There are genuine issues of material fact which should be considered by the fact-finder under Miss. Code Ann and Title 11, Chapter 27 of the Mississippi Code CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii

6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Alpaugh v. Moore, 568 So. 2d 291,295 (Miss. 1990)... 8 American Legion Ladnier Post No. 42, Inc. v. City of Ocean Springs, 562 So.2d I 03, I 06 (Miss. 1990) Broadhead v. Terpening, 611 So.2d 949, (Miss. 1992) Brown v. J.J. Ferguson Sand & Gravel Co., 858 So.2d 129, 130 (Miss. 2003) Dennis v. Searle, 457 So.2d 941,944 (Miss.1984) Hill v. Carroll County, 17 So.3d 1081, 1084 (Miss. 2009)... 7 Pray v. Hewitt, 179 So.2d 842, 844 (Miss. 1965)... 6 Roebuck v. McDade, 760 So.2d 12 (Miss.Ct.App.1999) Spartan Foods Systems, Inc. v. American Nat'! Ins. Co., 582 So.2d 399,402 (Miss.1991) Tucker v. Hinds County, 558 So.2d 869,872 (Miss. 1990) Willis v. Reid, 38 So. 793, 795 (1905)... 8 Wolfv. Stanley Works, 757 So.2d 316,319 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) Wright v. Quesnel, 876 So.2d 362 (Miss. 2004) Statutes: Mississippi Code Annotated, Title 11, Chapter Passim Mississippi Code Annotated Passim Rules: Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure.... Passim IV

7 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ON APPEAL I. The Special Court of Eminent Domain for Wayne County, Mississippi, erred in its granting of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. The doctrine of res judicata, and specifically the "merger" principle cited by the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Wayne County, Mississippi, does not bar Appellant's claim for Condemnation of Real Property and Establishment of a Private Road pursuant to Miss. Code Ann II. The Special Court of Eminent Domain for Wayne County, Mississippi, erred in its granting of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. There are genuine issues of material fact which should be considered by the fact-finder under Miss. Code Ann and Title 11, Chapter 27 of the Mississippi Code. Page 1 of 15

8 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Course of Proceedings and Disposition in the Court Below. This appeal arises out ofthe Complaint to Condemn Real Property filed by Curtis Ray McCarty, Jr. ("Appellant") against Arthur E. And Paula Wood ("Appellees") and Plum Creek South Central Timberland, LLC, in the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Wayne County, Mississippi ("the Special Court"). (R at 7-14) On October 6, 2014, Appellant filed his Complaint pursuant to his statutorily created and protected right under Miss. Code Ann (Id.) The Complaint was set down on the docket of the Special Court of Eminent Domain and assigned the Civil Action Number, CV W. (Id.) Appellant is the owner ofa landlocked piece of property located within Wayne County, Mississippi, and through his Complaint sought the establishment of a private road over the land of others in order to have access to his property. (Id.) Appellant filed his October 6, 2014, Complaint explicitly under Miss. Code Ann Within the Complaint, Appellant sought his separate and distinct remedy at law pursuant to this code section. (Id.) On November 14, 2014, Defendant Plum Creek South Central Timberland, LLC, filed its Response to Appellant's Complaint to Condemn Real Property. (R at 15-20) On December 23, 2014, Appellees filed their Answer to the Complaint to Condemn Real Property. (R at 21-27) That same day, on December 23, 2014, Appellees filed a Counterclaim against Appellant, claiming Appellant's statutorily protected right to file suit and access his property under the Mississippi Code was frivolous under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and Litigation Accountability On January 26, 2015, Appellant filed a Response to Appellee's Counterclaim. (R at 28-30) Page 2 of 15

9 On April 15,2015, Appellees filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds of res judicata. (R at ) Thereafter, on May 14, 2015, Defendant Plum Creek filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. (R at ) After Appellant's initial counsel in this matter withdrew from the case, Appellant's current counsel entered their appearance on August 13, (R at ) On September 2,2015, Appellant filed his Response in Opposition to Defendant's (sic) Motion for Summary Judgment. (R at ) A.fter an initial hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Special Court held the matter in abeyance and the parties attempted to mediate the case, without success. While Appellant successfully mediated a right of way across the land of Defendant Plum Creek, Appellant did not successfully mediate any right of way across Appellees' land. (See R at ) Defendant Plum Creek was dismissed by Court Order on or about February 18,2016. (R at ) On January 19,2016, a second hearing took place on Appellees' Motion for Summary Judgment. On March 1, 2016, the Special Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Appellees' Motion for Summary Judgment (R at ) On March 7, 2016, Appellant filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (R at ) Appellees responded to that Motion to Alter or Amend and additionally, filed a Motion for Attorney Fees. (See R at ) Those two Motions were heard by the Special Court during a hearing held on June 1,2016. On June 17, 2016, the Special Court entered an Order denying Appellant's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, and denying Appellees' Motion for Attorney Fees. (R at ) On July 7, 2005, Appellant filed a Complaint in Wayne County Chancery Court against Appellees for a prescriptive easement, easement by necessity/implied easement, and damages for Page 3 of 15

10 alleged deprivation of access to this same parcel of landlocked property. The 2005 Chancery Court suit was dismissed on an unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 13,2009, Appellant filed suit against Appellees in Wayne County Circuit Court for alleged damages as a result of the deprivation of access to this same parcel of landlocked property. The 2009 Circuit Court action was dismissed on May 10,2010, on the grounds of res judicata. In its March 1,2016, Order, the Special Court set forth and stated because "the Wayne County Special Court of Eminent Domain... is essentially the same court as the Wayne County Circuit Court", the Complaint brought under Miss. Code Ann would and should have been brought in the 2009 Circuit Court action for damages as a result of the denial of access. (R at ) The Special Court also said "the Chancery Court would have had jurisdiction [in 2005] to hear the current [Miss. Code Ann ] cause of action." (R at ) The Special Court further found and stated that "[Appellant's] cause of action under Miss. Code Ann , should be dismissed in accordance with the 'merger' principle of res judicata." (Id.) Appellant respectfully submits that the Special Court of Eminent Domain was in error in granting the Summary Judgment. Page 4 of 15

11 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Appellant is the owner ofa landlocked piece of property located within Wayne County, MS. Appellant has paid taxes on this property for over a decade, yet he has not had any access to his land. In the Complaint, Appellant sought specific relief. Appellant sought the establishment of a private road over the land of others in order to have access to his property. Appellant filed his Complaint and sought to proceed with obtaining his relief explicitly under Miss. Code Ann Appellant sought his remedy at law. Because Appellant sought relief through his statutorily created and protected, complete and adequate, remedy at law under Miss. Code Ann , res judicata should not have barred his claims. Therefore, Appellees should not have been entitled to Summary Judgment below under this theory. Furthermore, there are genuine issues of material fact in that the finder of fact should have considered after the requisite right of way across Appellees's land was established through condemnation. The Special Court of Eminent Domain for Wayne County, MS, erred in granting Summary Judgment in favor of Appellees. Page 5 of 15

12 ARGUMENT I. The Special Court of Eminent Domain for Wayne County, Mississippi, erred in its granting of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. The doctrine of res judicata, and specifically the "merger" principle cited by the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Wayne County, Mississippi, does not bar Appellant's claim for Condemnation of Real Property and Establishment of a Private Road pursuant to Miss. Code Ann The Special Court of Eminent Domain erred in granting Summary Judgment to Appellees based on res judicata grounds. Appellant filed suit in the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Wayne County, MS, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann Appellant admits that he has previously filed a Complaint against Appellees for a prescriptive easement, easement by necessity/implied easement, and damages for alleged deprivation of access to this same parcel of landlocked property in Wayne County Chancery Court on July 7,2005. Appellant further admits that this suit was dismissed on September 14, 2009, on an unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellant also admits that he filed suit against Appellees in Wayne County Circuit Court for alleged damages associated with the deprivation of access to this same parcel of landlocked property on August 13,2009. Appellant acknowledges that that Wayne County Circuit Court case was dismissed by the Honorable Robert Bailey on May 10, 2010 on the grounds of res judicata. However, Appellant argues that those prior actions do not bar his relief in this current action on res judicata, contrary to the Special Court's Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Appellee on such grounds. In legal terms, "res judicata" means the same issue has been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. Pray v. Hewitt, 179 So.2d 842, 844 (Miss. 1965). (Emphasis added). Page 6 of 15

13 There are four conditions essential to establish the plea of res judicata: 1) Identity in the thing sued for, 2) identify ofthe cause of action, 3) identity of the persons and parties to the action, and 4) identity of the equality and character in the person against whom the claim is made. rd. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "the absence of one of the [identities] is fatal to the defense of res judicata." Hill v. Carroll County, 17 So.3d 1081, 1084 (Miss. 2009). Additionally, "once the four identities of res judicata have been established, any claims that could have been brought in the prior action are baited." rd. at Miss. Code Ann provides "When any person shall desire to have a private road laid through the land of another, when necessary for ingress and egress, he shall apply by petition, stating the facts and reasons, to the Special Court of Eminent Domain created under of the County where the land or part of it is located, and the case shall proceed as nearly as possible as provided in Title 11, Chapter 27, for the condemnation of private property for public use." Miss. Code Ann (Emphasis added). By setting forth the necessary facts and filing his case in the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Wayne County, Appellant satisfied the pleading requirements under the statute both substantively and procedurally. Put plainly, pursuant to the Mississippi Code, neither the Chancery Court nor the Circuit Court of Wayne County was a proper forum for Appellant to establish a private road over the land of another to access his landlocked parcel. Further, contrary to the trial court's finding, pursuant to the Mississippi Code, neither the Chancery Court nor the Circuit Court of Wayne County had competent jurisdiction to decide the merits of the action for a private road. Rather, pursuant to the Mississippi Code, the only Court with competent jurisdiction and proper forum is the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Wayne County. The fact that in Wayne Page 7 of 15

14 County, MS the Circuit Court Judge sits as Judge for both courts is of no consequence to the question of jurisdiction. In many Counties, the County Court Judge sits as the Special Court of Eminent Domain. That fact alone flies in the face of the trial court's logic as to why this matter could have been heard in the 2009 Circuit Court action. Further, contrary to the trial court's finding, the Chancery Court of Wayne County was not a court with competent jurisdiction to hear a matter under Miss. Code Ann The fact that Chancery Courts routinely hear matters associated with land use and land rights is of no consequence to the question of competent jurisdiction under the pertinent Code section. Appellant sought his legal remedy at law, by following the precise method to attain such remedy as set forth under the statute, in an effort to gain access to his land for the first time in nearly a decade. Actions for the establishment of a private road across the land of another, such as Appellant has filed in the instant case, have been legislatively committed to the Special Court of Eminent Domain in the particular County in which the land is located by virtue of Miss. Code Ann Moreover, it is clear that Miss. Code Ann provides Appellant with an adequate remedy at law, and the two prior suits relied on by Appellees should never have been heard anywhere other than the Special Court of Eminent Domain of Wayne County. Since 1905, the Mississippi Supreme Court has established the proper manner for seeking a private way across neighboring lands was by petitioning under the Mississippi Code. (See, Alpaugh v. Moore, 568 So. 2d 291, 295 (Miss. 1990), "... this court recognized that the proper manner for seeking a private way across neighboring land was by petitioning the county board of supervisors." (Emphasis added); Willis v. Reid, 38 So. 793, 795 (1905) ("Conceding that the Page 8 of 15

15 situation is such that Reid has a legal right to demand a passage through the lands of appellants, he can only procure it by proceeding to have a private way established in accordance with the provisions of section 3901, Rev. Code This section, when surrounding conditions justify, permits the establishment of a private right of way over the lands of another, 'where necessary for ingress and egress."') (Emphasis added). Notably, Miss. Code Ann was amended in 2003 to provide that proceedings to establish a private way of necessity through the lands of another for the purpose of allowing ingress and egress shall be filed with and determined by the Special Court of Eminent Domain of the county where the land or part of it is located, rather than through the County Board of Supervisors as had previously been set forth under the Code. The issues to be raised and addressed in Appellant's action under Miss. Code Ann were not addressed in the two prior lawsuits. Therefore, the subject matter, cause of action of this suit are different from the two prior lawsuits, making res judicata an inapplicable defense. Specifically, Appellant's action under Miss. Code Ann is to proceed as closely as possible with the procedures of Title 11, Chapter 27 of the Mississippi Code. Those issues, factors, elements, and procedures, as applied for the condemnation of private property for public use, were not addressed in the two prior lawsuits. Those issues, factors, elements and procedures are not used in Chancery or Circuit Court. For example, there was no determination of the value to be given to Appellees as compensation for the private road Appellant must have in order to have access to his land in the prior two lawsuits. While the trial court and Appellees state that Appellant should have asserted these rights and sought this relief under Miss. Code Ann in the Circuit and Chancery Court proceedings, that would not have been Page90f 15

16 possible. The different procedures under Title 11, Chapter 27 of the Mississippi Code, which are necessary for Appellant's current action, are not necessary in other civil actions heard in Circuit or Chancery Court. Appellant desired a private road in order to access his landlocked parcel, and he sought his remedy at law by following the procedure as set forth in the Mississippi Code. Appellant should be entitled to access his land. Appellant should be entitled to file suit under the statute for private road, and he seek his remedy at law. The trial court should have denied Summary Judgment. Moreover, individuals must be able to access their property in a civil and legal manner. Appellant has owned this particular parcel of landlocked property for a decade, and has been paying taxes on the same even without having access. Appellant tried to use the avenue available to him by virtue of Miss. Code Ann , in order to pursue his legal right to access in a safe, civil, and fair manner. Appellees argued that "as a matter of public policy, this Court should grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the grounds of res judicata." Appellees argued that public policy concerns such as expense, vexation attending multiple lawsuits, and conservation of judicial resources dictate that res judicata should bar Appellant's relief. However, the greater public policy concern would be to deny Appellant his right to access his land, when he is attempting to use the legal channels explicitly afforded to him under the statute. The trial court should have found that "public policy" should be to follow the Code as it was enacted by the Legislators, in their role as representatives of the greater public at large. Fundamental fairness should have also dictated that Appellant should not be barred from Pagel00f 15

17 proceeding under the statute to access his land. A private road for ingress and egress is necessary in order for Appellant to enjoy and use this land. Therefore, the trial court should have condemned the property as provided in the Code, and Appellant should have been forced to pay what was determined to be "reasonable compensation" for the same under the Eminent Domain title. This is explicitly is what the State of Mississippi's "public policy" is with regards to Appellants' situation, and the circumstances as presented to the Special Court of Eminent Domain in this case. The trial court erred in ruling against such principles. Appellant requests that this Court re-examine the decision in Broadhead v. Temening case, which is a plurality opinion, and apply Justice Pittman's logical dissent to this case. Specifically, this Court should find that regardless of the principles of res judicata, procedurally speaking, this suit must not have been heard in the Chancery Court or Circuit Court, but rather should have proceeded according to proper procedure found in Miss. Code Ann Broadhead v. Temening. 611 So.2d 949, (Miss. 1992). II. The Special Court of Eminent Domain for Wayne County, Mississippi, erred in its granting of Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment. There are genuine issues of material fact which should be considered by the fact-finder under Miss. Code Ann and Title 11, Chapter 27 of the Mississippi Code. The trial court erred in granting Summary Judgment to Appellees. There were and remain genuine issues of fact so that Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure was not proper. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that "summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is a genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is Page 11 of 15

18 entitled to a judgment as a matter oflaw." Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "Summary judgment cannot substitute for a trial to resolve disputes of material fact, but neither should a trial on undisputed material facts substitute for a summary judgment." Wolfv. Stanley Works, 757 So.2d 316, 319 (Miss.Ct.App.2000). "[I]t is well-settled that motions for summary judgment are to be viewed with a skeptical eye, and if a trial court should err, it is better to err on the side of denying the motion. The focal point of [the] de novo review is on material facts. In defining a 'material' fact in the context of summary judgments, the Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that '[t]he presence of fact issues in the record does not per se entitle a party to avoid summary judgment. The court must be convinced that the factual issue is a material one, one that matters in an outcome determinative sense." Roebuck v. McDade, 760 So.2d 12 (~9)(Miss.Ct.App.l999). "All that is required of a nonmoving party to survive a motion for summary judgment is to establish a genuine issue of material fact by the means available under... Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c)." Spartan Foods Systems, Inc. v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 582 So.2d 399, 402 (Miss.l991). Summary judgments "should be granted with great caution." Brown v. J.J. Ferguson Sand & Gravel Co., 858 So.2d 129, 130 (Miss. 2003). "[A]n adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(e). "Issues of fact... are present where one party swears to one version of the matter in issue and other says the opposite." Tucker v. Hinds County, 558 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss. 1990). Where one party swears to one version of the matter at issue, and the other another version, issues of fact can be present sufficient to bar summary judgment." American Legion Ladnier Post No. 42. Inc. v. City of Ocean Springs, 562 So.2d 103, 106 (Miss. 1990). "An issue offact may be Page 12 of 15

19 present when there is more than one reasonable interpretation of undisputed testimony, where materially different but reasonable inferences may be drawn from uncontradicted evidentiary facts, or when the purported establishment of the facts has been sufficiently incomplete or inadequate that the trial judge cannot say with reasonable confidence that the full facts of the matter have been disclosed." Dennis v. Searle, 457 So.2d 941, 944 (Miss.I984). "Indeed, where we find triable issues, we must reverse a summary judgment." Wright v. Quesnel, 876 So.2d 362 (Miss. 2004). There exist genuine issues of material fact in this case, and Summary Judgment should have been precluded by the trial court. Appellant has filed under Miss. Code Ann Under that provision of law, this action is to proceed as closely as possible follows under Title 11, Chapter 27 of the Mississippi Code. There exist numerous issues of material fact to be determined under Title 11, Chapter 27, as this case proceeds under Miss. Code Ann , and the issues, factors, elements, and procedures, as applied for the condemnation of private property for public use, should have precluded Summary Judgment. For example, there was no determination of the value to be given to Appellees as compensation for the private road Appellant must have in order to have access to his land in the prior two lawsuits. All of the facts and issues to be determined under Title II, Chapter 27, should have precluded Summary Judgment at the trial court level as fact issues. CONCLUSION The doctrine of res judicata should not have barred Appellant's suit under Miss. Code Ann Appellant sought his separate remedy at law by seeking the establishment ofa private road over the land of another to have access to his land. Appellant did so by following Page 13 of 15

20 the exact procedure that is set out in the Mississippi Code. Additionally, there exist numerous genuine issues of material fact, such as the factors and issues found in Title 11, Chapter 27, which should have precluded the entry of Summary Judgment below. This Court should not affirm a decision which prevents a property-taxpaying Mississippian from accessing his land, when a valid vehicle for him to access his land is available under the law. Respectfully submitted, this the 15 th day of December, /s/ James C. Griffin James C. Griffin (MSB #104566) BARRY, THAGGARD, MAY & BAILEY, LLP 505 Constitution Ave. Post Office Box 2009 Meridian, Mississippi, Telephone: (601) Facsimile: (601) griffin@btmblaw.com Attorney for Appellant, Curtis Ray McCarty, Jr. Page 14 of 15

21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have this day electronically filed Appellant's Brief with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Honorable Terry L. Caves Honorable Risher Caves Caves & Caves, PLLC 525 North Fourth Avenue Laurel, MS Attorney for Appellees Arthur E. Wood, III and Paula Wood I further certify that I have this day mailed via U.S. mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant's Brief to the following: Honorable Lester F. Williamson Judge, Special Court of Eminent Domain, Wayne County, MS 500 Constitution Ave. Meridian, MS This, the 15 th day of December, lsi James C. Griffin James C. Griffin Page 15 of 15