Ratliff v. Ratliff, 57240
| Decision Date | 03 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 57240,57240 |
| Citation | 500 So.2d 981 |
| Parties | Frederick W. RATLIFF, Jr. v. Martha Chadwick RATLIFF. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
John Robbins, II, Brandon, for appellant.
Lester F. Smith, Robert L. McArty, Perry, Morrison & Smith, Jackson, for appellee.
Before WALKER, C.J., and DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ.
Mr. Ratliff sought to modify a prior decree of the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. Mrs. Ratliff filed a motion for summary judgment which she did not support by affidavit or discovery material.
The chancellor improvidently granted the motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment unsupported by affidavit or other sworn statements should not be sustained. Miss.R.Civ.P., 56(e) and Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So.2d 358 (Miss.1983).
All motions for summary judgment should be viewed with great skepticism and if the trial court is to err, it is better to err on the side denying the motion. Brown, 444 So.2d at 362. This skepticism on the offer of summary judgment certainly applies in domestic matters, and chancellors should not attempt to use the new practices provided by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure as a shortcut to the determination in open court of issues that are very frequently factual.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Tupelo v. Patterson, 2015–IA–01409–SCT
..., 999 So.2d 368, 371 (Miss. 2008) (quoting Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Berry , 669 So.2d 56, 70 (Miss. 1996) ); see also Ratliff v. Ratliff, 500 So.2d 981, 981 (Miss. 1986).LAW AND ANALYSIS¶ 16. The O'Callaghans argue that the law is clear: the Takings Clause under Article 3, Section 17 of the......
-
Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Berry
...on the side of denying a motion for summary judgment if a doubt exists as to whether a genuine issue of fact exists. Ratliff v. Ratliff, 500 So.2d 981, 981 (Miss.1986). A. WAS THE ACTION BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF Young and City argue that it is indisputable that the chancery court suit was f......
-
Magnolia Const. Co., Inc. v. Mississippi Gulf South Engineers Inc., 57324
...be viewed with great skepticism and if the trial court is to err, it is better to err on the side of denying the motion." Ratliff v. Ratliff, 500 So.2d 981 (Miss.1986). The Court went on to say that "[w]henever a doubt exists whether there is a fact issue, the non-moving party gets its bene......
-
Sutherland v. Estate of Ritter
...be resolved in favor of the non-moving party." Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co. v. Berry, 669 So.2d 56, 70 (Miss.1996) (citing Ratliff v. Ratliff, 500 So.2d 981, 981 (Miss.1986)). The record demonstrates substantial doubt as to whether a fact issue exists. Therefore, because there are material iss......