Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
O'Neal v. Ketchum
Court of Appeals of Mississippi
Decided June 24, 2014No. 2013-CA-00460-COAPublished
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJames, J.
¶ 19. I agree with the majority that the title of the mobile home did not pass to O’Neal or Mr. Ketchum. However, the majority also finds that O’Neal asserted a new claim on appeal, and as such is procedurally barred from pursuing it on appeal. I respectfully dissent.
¶ 20. In the amended complaint, O’Neal stated that the trustee’s deed “is completely void ab initio by virtue of the failure of the trustee to follow the laws made and provided for [the] purpose of foreclosing on deeds of trust in the [SJtate of Mississippi.” O’Neal attacked the validity of the sale by alleging that the trustee…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Lake Hillsdale Estates, Inc. v. GallowayMississippi Supreme Court · 1985
- Merchants Nat. Bank v. StewartMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- Shutze v. Credithrift of America, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- Estate of Walters v. FreemanCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2004
- Fleisher v. Southern AgCreditCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2012
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.