Understanding Mississippi Law on Towing and Storage Costs: What You Need to Know

 Understanding Mississippi Law on Towing and Storage Costs: What You Need to Know

Are you aware of your rights and responsibilities when it comes to towing and storage costs in Mississippi? Whether you're a vehicle owner, a towing company, or a real property owner, it's crucial to understand the regulations outlined in Mississippi Code Annotated section 85-7-251.

1. Liability for Towing and Storage Costs: According to the statute, the owner of a motor vehicle that has been towed is liable for the reasonable price of towing and storage. This applies in various scenarios, including towing at the request of the owner, at the direction of a law enforcement officer, or upon request of a real property owner for a vehicle left without permission for more than five days.

2. Notice Requirements: Towing companies are required to report towed vehicles to the local law enforcement agency within 24 hours unless towed at the owner's request. If the owner hasn't contacted the towing company within five business days, efforts must be made to locate the owner and lienholder. Notification of the amount due must be sent via registered mail within ten days of the initial tow. Failure to comply with these notice requirements may preclude the imposition of storage and towing charges.

3. Sale of Towed Vehicles: If towing and storage charges remain unpaid for 30 days, the towing company can commence the sale of the vehicle at public auction after providing notice to legal owners and lienholders. Notice of the sale must be published in a newspaper with circulation in the county where the vehicle was initially towed. Proceeds from the sale, after covering expenses, are held for six months and then become the property of the county if not reclaimed by the owner.

4. Recordkeeping Requirements: Towing companies are obligated to maintain accurate records for three years, identifying towed vehicles and detailing compliance with the statute's provisions.

Conclusion: Understanding Mississippi's laws regarding towing and storage costs is essential for all parties involved. Whether you're a vehicle owner, a towing company, or a real property owner, compliance with these regulations ensures fair treatment and protection of rights. If you have questions or concerns about your rights and obligations under Mississippi law, it's advisable to consult with legal experts familiar with the intricacies of these statutes.

CLE with Discount

 I recently presented “Pain and Suffering Damages: Simple Yet Effective Strategies for Plaintiff's Lawyers” for National Business Institute, which you can now watch OnDemand. Use promo code FPDN50A at checkout to get $50 off your purchase. Check it out at https://www.nbi-sems.com/ProductDetails/98131SVDM

Tennessee Negligent Supervision

The Tennessee Supreme Court yesterday held that a plaintiff may go forward with claims of direct negligence against a business even after the business admits it is indirectly liable for any negligence of its employee.  The Court also held that a plaintiff may assert concurrent claims based on both negligent activity and premises liability.

On December 17, 2018, Melissa Binns (“Plaintiff”) allegedly slipped and fell at a grocery store owned and operated by Trader Joe’s East, Inc. (“Defendant”) in Nashville, Tennessee.  Plaintiff claimed that an employee of Defendant negligently loaded and stocked tofu in the store, causing a package to fall and release a clear liquid onto the floor.  While shopping, Plaintiff walked down the aisle with the spill, slipped on the liquid, and suffered injuries.  Plaintiff filed suit, alleging premises liability, negligent training, negligent supervision, and indirect or “vicarious” liability against Defendant.  In its answer, Defendant denied liability for the incident but admitted it would be vicariously liable for the conduct of its employee if the fact finder determined the employee was negligent. 

Defendant then filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, attempting to dismiss Plaintiff’s negligent training and supervision claims.  Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s direct negligent claims were “legally deficient” for two reasons.  First, Defendant argued that the negligent training and supervision claims were precluded because Defendant had admitted to being vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, a theory known as the “preemption rule.”  Alternatively, Defendant argued that “negligent activity” and premises liability claims cannot be asserted concurrently in a lawsuit by a single plaintiff because the claims are logically inconsistent.  

The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.  However, the trial court granted Defendant permission to file an interlocutory appeal to ask the Court of Appeals to determine the viability of Defendant’s proposed rules under Tennessee law.  Although the Court of Appeals declined Defendant’s application, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.  First, the Court declined to adopt what courts call the “preemption rule,” which says that once an employer admits vicarious liability for its employee’s negligence, plaintiffs cannot go forward with claims of direct negligence against the employer.  The Court explained that the preemption rule conflicts with Tennessee’s system of modified comparative fault, among other concerns.

The Court also declined to adopt Defendant’s proposed rule involving “negligent activity” and premises liability claims.  It explained that even if claims for “negligent activity” and premises liability are logically inconsistent under the particular facts of a given case, the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure permit parties to state separate claims in their complaint, “regardless of consistency.” 

To read the unanimous opinion in Binns v. Trader Joe’s East Inc., authored by Justice Roger A. Page, visit the opinions section of TNCourts.gov.

Understanding Transfer on Death Deeds: Tax Implications and Estate Considerations

In the realm of estate planning, one tool that has gained significant traction in recent years is the Transfer on Death (TOD) deed. This legal instrument allows individuals to transfer real estate to designated beneficiaries upon their death without the need for probate.

What is a Transfer on Death Deed?

A Transfer on Death deed, also known as a beneficiary deed or a TOD deed, is a legal document that enables property owners to designate beneficiaries who will inherit their real estate upon their death. Unlike traditional wills, TOD deeds bypass the probate process, thereby providing a streamlined method for transferring real property.

Tax Implications of Transfer on Death Deeds

One of the primary advantages of TOD deeds is their ability to facilitate the transfer of property outside of probate, which can be time-consuming and costly. However, it's essential to understand the tax implications associated with this estate planning tool.

Capital Gains Tax:

One significant consideration is the potential impact on capital gains tax. When property is transferred through a TOD deed, the beneficiary receives a "stepped-up" basis, meaning the property's value is reset to its fair market value at the time of the owner's death. This adjustment can minimize the capital gains tax liability for the beneficiary if they choose to sell the property in the future.

Inheritance Tax:

In most cases, inheritance tax is not applicable to property transferred via TOD deeds. However, it's crucial to consult with a tax professional to understand the specific tax laws and regulations in your jurisdiction.

Estate Administration and Creditor Claims

While TOD deeds offer a streamlined method for transferring real estate, it's essential to recognize that they do not completely eliminate the need for estate administration. In some cases, opening an estate may still be necessary to address outstanding creditor claims and other administrative matters.

Creditor Claims:

Even if property is transferred through a TOD deed, creditors may still have valid claims against the deceased's estate. Opening an estate allows creditors to make claims against the estate's assets, including the property transferred via TOD deed. By going through the probate process, creditors are provided with a specified timeframe to assert their claims, offering clarity and protection for beneficiaries.

Conclusion

Transfer on Death deeds can be valuable estate planning tools, offering a straightforward method for transferring real estate to designated beneficiaries. However, it's essential to understand the tax implications associated with TOD deeds, including capital gains tax considerations. Additionally, while TOD deeds can streamline the transfer process, they may not fully negate the need for estate administration, particularly concerning creditor claims.

Jury Issue of Interest in Mississippi

 This case looks like a potential problem waiting to happen.  

City of Picayune v. Landry Lewis Germany Architects, P.A., 2022-CA-00909-SCT (Civil - Torts - MTCA)
Reversing a judgment against the City based on a claim that the City failed to volunteer information about a juror during voir dire in a civil trial to which the City was a party, holding: "A party litigant has no duty to party opposite to personally intervene during a trial to prevent a fraud on the court by a potential juror."
(9-0)

Upcoming CLE

 

I'm looking forward to presenting at National Business Institute’s upcoming course, “Negotiating Injury Claims: Secrets and Insider Tips” on Wednesday, May 22, 2024. Register today at https://www.nbi-sems.com/ProductDetails/98463ER!

Use Promo Code FSPN50A at checkout to get $50 off. Hope to see you there.

Expunging A DUI in Mississippi

Under certain circumstances a DUI may be expunged in Mississippi.   Under 63-11-30 the requirements are below: 

 (13)Expunction.

(a) Any person convicted under subsection (2) or (3) of this section of a first offense of driving under the influence and who was not the holder of a commercial driver's license or a commercial learning permit at the time of the offense may petition the circuit court of the county in which the conviction was had for an order to expunge the record of the conviction at least five (5) years after successful completion of all terms and conditions of the sentence imposed for the conviction. Expunction under this subsection will only be available to a person:

(i) Who has successfully completed all terms and conditions of the sentence imposed for the conviction;

(ii) Who did not refuse to submit to a test of his blood or breath;

(iii) Whose blood alcohol concentration tested below sixteen one-hundredths percent (.16%) if test results are available;

(iv) Who has not been convicted of and does not have pending any other offense of driving under the influence;

(v) Who has provided the court with justification as to why the conviction should be expunged; and

(vi) Who has not previously had a nonadjudication or expunction of a violation of this section.

(b) A person is eligible for only one (1) expunction under this subsection, and the Department of Public Safety shall maintain a permanent confidential registry of all cases of expunction under this subsection for the sole purpose of determining a person's eligibility for expunction, for nonadjudication, or as a first offender under this section.

(c) The court in its order of expunction shall state in writing the justification for which the expunction was granted and forward the order to the Department of Public Safety within five (5) days of the entry of the order.

Four situations in which an executor or administrator may petition the court for an order authorizing the sale of real property in Mississippi

 

There are four situations in which an executor or administrator may petition the court for an order authorizing the sale of real property:

pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-187 authorizing the sale of land, with due consideration given to the interests of the distributees, in preference to the personal property;

pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-189 authorizing the sale of land if a decedent had purchased land prior to his death and died before completing payment for it and the decedent’s personal property is not sufficient to pay the debt;

pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-191, if the executor or administrator determines that the personal property will not be sufficient to pay the debts and expenses of the estate; and

pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 91-7-261, if the executor or administrator determines that both the real and personal property will be insufficient to pay the debts of the estate.

Random Mississippi Statute of Interest

 

Chapter 17 - Suits to Confirm Title or Interest and to Remove Clouds on Title
§ 11-17-35. Title of complainant must be deraigned-and decrees, in certain cases, recorded as deeds

Universal Citation: MS Code § 11-17-35 (2020)

In bills to confirm title to real estate, and to cancel and remove clouds therefrom, the complainant must set forth in plain and concise language the deraignment of his title. If title has passed out of the sovereign more than seventy-five (75) years prior to the filing of the bill, then the deraignment shall be sufficient if it show title out of the sovereign and a deraignment of title for not less than sixty (60) years prior to the filing of the bill. A mere statement therein that complainant is the real owner of the land shall be insufficient, unless good and valid reason be given why he does not deraign his title. In all such cases, final decrees in the complainant's favor shall be recorded in the record of deeds, and shall be indexed as if a conveyance of the land from the defendant or each of them, if more than one, to the complainant or complainants, if more than one.

Deposition No-Nos

 

A party may be sanctioned for failing to answer a question.  M.R.C.P. 37(a)(2) ("If a deponent fails to answer a question ..., the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer .... When taking a deposition on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the examination before he applies for an order."); M.R.C.P. 37(a)(4) ("If the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust."); see also 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2116 (3d ed. 2010) ("An alternative method by which a court ruling upon the propriety of the examination may be obtained is by refusal of the witness to answer particular questions, thus provoking a motion under Rule 37(a) to compel an answer.... Although there is thus a substantial preference for requiring that deponents apply to the court for protection rather than simply refusing to answer questions, it is to be hoped that the courts will take a realistic view of the conduct of depositions rather than foreclose deponents' objections in response to motions to compel answers.").

Except for the purpose of preserving a privilege, the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for counsel to instruct a witness not to answer a question at a deposition, even if the question is indeed objectionable. See M.R.C.P. 30. Objections should be made at the time of the deposition and "shall be noted upon the transcription or recording. Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the objections." M.R.C.P. 30(c) ; see also Banks v. Office of the Senate Sergeant–at–Arms , 222 F.R.D. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2004) ; Ethicon Endo–Surgery v. U.S. Surgical Corp. , 160 F.R.D. 98, 99 (S.D. Ohio 1995).

CLE

 I recently presented “Independent Medical Examinations: What They Don't Want You to Know” for National Business Institute, which you can now watch OnDemand! Use promo code FPDN50A at checkout to get $50 off your purchase. Check it out at https://www.nbi-sems.com/ProductDetails/97996SVDM!

Tennessee Unclaimed Property

 

The state of Tennessee has a website for unclaimed property:

 https://unclaimedproperty.tn.gov/app/claim-search

 Apparently, the state is holding close to $70 million in funds. 

 https://tntribune.com/68-7m-unclaimed-in-tennessee/ 

 Chances are you personally and your firms are owed some money.  

Social Media Terms to Know

Hacked= use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system.

Cloned=cloning  the process of copying the contents of one computer hard drive to another disk or to an “image” file. 

Spoofed= Spoofing is a type of scam in which a criminal disguises an email address, display name, phone number, text message, or website URL to convince a target that they are interacting with a known, trusted source. Spoofing often involves changing just one letter, number, or symbol of the communication so that it looks valid at a quick glance. For example, you could receive an email that appears to be from Netflix using the fake domain name “netffix.com.”

Phishing= the fraudulent practice of sending emails or other messages purporting to be from reputable companies in order to induce individuals to reveal personal information, such as passwords and credit card numbers.

CLE of Interest

 

I'm looking forward to presenting at National Business Institute’s upcoming course, “Pain and Suffering Damages: Simple Yet Effective Strategies for Plaintiff's Lawyers” on Tuesday, March 26, 2024. Register today at https://www.nbi-sems.com/ProductDetails/98131ER!

Use Promo Code FSPN50A at checkout to get $50 off. Hope to see you there.

New Home Warranty Act

The Mississippi New Home Warranty Act outlines specific timeframes for builders to address repairs or defects in newly constructed homes. Typically, the Act requires builders to rectify warranted defects within a reasonable time after receiving written notice from the homeowner.

However, the Act doesn't specify an exact timeline for repairs. What's considered "reasonable" can vary depending on the nature and severity of the issue. Minor repairs might be expected to be resolved more quickly than major structural problems. It's often helpful to communicate directly with the builder to establish expectations for the repair timeline. This is something that needs to be fixed in the statute.