Johnson v. Benton

• Decision Date: 05 October 2021
• Docket Number: 2019-CP-01087-COA
• Citation: Johnson v. Benton, 333 So.3d 51 (Miss. App. 2021)
• Parties: Curtis Henry JOHNSON, Appellant v. Paul BENTON, Appellee
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

333 So.3d 51

Curtis Henry JOHNSON, Appellant

v.Paul BENTON, Appellee

NO. 2019-CP-01087-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

October 5, 2021

Rehearing Denied January 4, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CURTIS HENRY JOHNSON(PRO SE)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: KATHERINE BARRETT RILEY, BRANDI RATLIFF HAMILTON, Lexington

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.

BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1.Paul Benton and certain members of Curtis Johnson's family jointly own a tract of land (the Property) formerly owned by Walter Johnson, Curtis's great-grandfather.Known as the "Johnson Tract," it consists of approximately 286 acres in rural Holmes County, Mississippi.This case stems from a petition for the partition and division of the property filed by Paul and Bobby Benton(the Bentons), who at the time this case commenced owned approximately sixty percent of the Property.The parties entered into an agreed order finalizing the partition and providing, among other matters, that the parties should not enter certain areas of each other's property.The record, however, shows that Curtis had been trespassing on the Bentons’ land for several years.

¶2.After entry of the agreed order, Curtis continued to trespass repeatedly on Paul's property.Paul accordingly filed a petition for contempt with the chancery court.In response, Curtis filed a motion to dismiss Paul's petition, claiming for the first time he is subject to tribal sovereign immunity because he is "Chief of the Creek Indians East of the Mississippi."After a hearing, the chancellor denied Curtis's motion to dismiss and granted Paul's petition for contempt.Aggrieved, Curtis appealed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3.This lengthy lawsuit commenced on December 31, 2013, when the Bentons filed a petition for partition of the Property.¹The rural property, owned by the Bentons and certain members of Curtis's family as tenants in common, is located north of Lexington, Mississippi, along Highway 17.In 1918, Curtis's great-grandfather Walter Johnson purchased the Property.At his death it was devised to his two sons, Reginald and Henry Johnson(Curtis's grandfather).Interest in the Property was subsequently passed down to numerous children, one of whom was Curtis's father, Joe Lewis Johnson.The Bentons own adjacent land and over the years had purchased interest in the Property from several Johnson family members.²When the suit commenced, the Bentons owned approximately sixty percent of the Property, and the Johnsons owned about forty percent.

¶4.Defendants responded that they did "not object to a partition in kind but want[ed] to ensure that their interests in natural resources and mineral rights [we]re adequately protected in the proposed partition."They requested special commissioners be appointed³ to inspect and value the Property, and to ascertain the existence of any sand, gravel, or subsurface water on the land.In July 2014, the chancery court appointed four commissioners: an appraiser, a forester, a surveyor, and a geologist.

¶5.The record indicates problems with Curtis began around April 2014, as alleged in the Bentons’ August 29, 2014, first amended petition for partition of real property, which included a request for injunctive relief against Defendants for damage to their property and to prevent their reentry.The Bentons own private land adjacent to the land at issue and maintain a hunting camp with expensive equipment on the land.The Bentons’ request for injunctive relief was in response to the following alleged incidents: in April 2014, two gates on a road that leads to the Bentons’ hunting cabin located on adjacent property were destroyed by a blowtorch.The Bentons contended these gates did not prevent the Johnsons from accessing their own property.The Bentons also had photographs of Curtis destroying the Bentons’ gates.Photographs from "trail cameras" further showed Curtis using the access road to enter the Bentons’ private land.In July 2014, Curtis changed the locks on a gate, thereby preventing Paul Benton from accessing his adjacent property, resulting in the loss of his soybean crop.

¶6.In May 2015, the Bentons filed a motion for a temporary restraining order(TRO) because Defendants had refused to keep the gates closed on the access roads to the Bentons’ hunting camp, which includes the northern border of the land being partitioned.Due to the expensive equipment at the hunting camp, the Bentons were concerned about theft.The chancery court granted the motion and ordered Defendants to keep the gates shut.In response to the order, Curtis and his fatherJoe Lewis, now appearing pro se, filed a motion for contempt against the Bentons and to "dismiss the order," claiming the Bentons did not own the road where the gates were located and did not have permission to use it.

¶7.The Bentons denied any violation of the court's TRO and cited an incident when Paul and several hired men were working on the property and access road near his hunting camp.Paul claimed that on June 7, 2015, Curtis ripped the gate that secures the access road off its posts, thereby leaving his property unsecure.Days later, the Bentons filed an emergency motion for a TRO against Defendants, citing this destruction and several other similar incidents.⁴The Bentons attached photographs from trail cameras and affidavits that supported their contentions.The motion stated Curtis's actions were "irrational, malicious, and reckless," causing the Bentons, as well as their friends and workers, to fear for their safety.After a hearing, in August 2015 the chancery court entered a final decree granting the Bentons a permanent injunction.Curtis and Joe Lewis filed a motion to dismissthe court's TRO, contending that the Bentons did not own the land where their hunting lodge is; instead, this land was "the remaining property of the Walter Johnson Jr. estate," and further, the Bentons were attempting to adversely possess the land.

¶8.On February 3, 2016, the four appointed special commissioners filed their report and recommendation on the Property, finding approximately sixty acres to be open land and valuing the remainder timber land at $48,000.A survey map divided the Property into four tracts, all fronting Highway 17.One tract comprised approximately 282 acres with a value of $1,500 per acre, with the remaining three tracts comprising about one acre each with a value of $750 per acre.The commissioners found the Bentons owned 60.20% of the property, and Defendants owned 39.80%; the commissioners accordingly divided the Property to result in the same percentages of total property value in timber and gravel.The division also gave the parties full access to their parcels with adequate public road frontage, interior travel roads, and buffering.

¶9.Basing their division off the survey map, the commissioners divided the property into six tracts and suggested granting the Bentons approximately sixty percent of the total property value, with the remaining forty-percent value being granted to Defendants.Time and expenses for the commissioners’ duties totaled approximately $56,000.Also on February 3, 2016, the parties, including Curtis, signed an agreed order.The Bentons received Tract 5 consisting of approximately 172 acres.Defendants were granted Tracts 1 through 4 and Tract 6, totaling approximately 113 acres.The agreed order provided "no Defendants shall be allowed on any portion of Plaintiffs’ [the Bentons’] property identified as Tract 5.Likewise, Plaintiffs[the Bentons] shall not be allowed on Tracts 1-4 or Tract 6.Defendants agree that no Defendant shall have any access to the licensed roadway at any time."However, Curtis "repeatedly violated" the order by "blatantly trespassing" on the Bentons’ property, including private property that was not a part of the partition suit.

¶10.On April 25, 2019, the Bentons filed a petition to cite Curtis for civil and criminal contempt after repeatedly requesting Curtis to cease trespassing.The petition described an incident on October 10, 2018, when the Bentons and some friends were again working on the deer camp.Curtis "barreled down the access road in his truck and into the field where they were working."He approached Paul in a "violent and aggressive manner" and was shouting.Paul asked someone to call the sheriff's department.Curtis shouted in response that neither the sheriff nor the court could "do anything" to him because he was "an Indian."The Bentons attached to their petition photographs from trail cameras showing Curtis trespassing that day.⁵The Bentons exhorted the chancery court to punish Curtis for nearly eight years of endless harassment and trespassing, as well as thousands of dollars in needless attorney's fees and costs.

¶11.On May 3, 2019, in response, Curtis filed a motion to dismiss Paul's petition for contempt, claiming he is a Creek Indian and subject to tribal sovereign immunity, which protects him and his family from particular suits, especially land disputes.Curtis attached to his motion a statement to "Honorable Judges of Justice Court or any State Court" that his ancestors were "Indians" and that his great-grandfather Walter Johnson"had to reacquire his ancestral lands."Further, he claimed his family had been in possession of these lands since 1840"and have lived as Indians since then."He cited to the "Treaty With the Creeks 1790" and maintained that "[a]nything adverse to those treaties or any federal laws for Indians is a violation of our rights as Indian[s]."He argued that any case brought against the Creek Indians must be argued in "Tribal Courts."Curtis referred to himself as "Chief" of the "Creek Indian Tribe East of the Mississippi" and began signing his name to court documents with an "X."

¶12.On June 5, 2019, a hearing was held on Curtis's motion to dismiss and Paul's petition for contempt.Curtis, appearing pro se, explained that he had "filed papers at the courthouse" giving...