A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S

 FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

                               HAYWOOD JACKSON MIZELL, OWNER 285 E. Broad St, Ozark, AL

 FOR THE DEFENDANT Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. & City of Ozark:

                                     HON. DONALD KEITH ANDRESS, BAKER DONALDSON, 420 20TH ST. N., SUITE 1400, BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203 – 3221

                                     HON. AMELIA K STEINDORFF, 2100 SOUTHBRIDGE PKWY, STE. 288, BIRMINGHAM, AL 35209

                                     HON. JAMES H. PIKE, SHELLEY CRUM & PIKE, PO BOX 6346, DOTHAN, AL 36302 – 6346

 THE COURT: we are here on June 19, 2019. There are two cases pending before the court in each case there are various motions that have been filed court will address CV 2019 – eight first. This is Haywood Jackson Mizell versus Wells Fargo NA at al. We do have Mr. Don Anderson here for Wells Fargo we have Mr. James Pike and Mrs. Amelia Stein—

     MS. STEINDORFF: STEINDORFF.

     THE COURT: Spell that for me.

      MS STEINDORFF: S-T-E-I-N-D-O-R-F-F.

     THE COURT: Thank you. Representing the city of Ozark. Mr. Mizell is here pro se. Certainly, Mr. Mizell, I’m going to go ahead and ask if you will rage you can just keep your seat but if you raise your right hand.

Haywood Jackson Mizell

having first been duly sworn or affirmed was examined and testified as follows: to wit:

THE COURT: And, of course, the reason I have to do that is because you have every right to represent yourself. But as a pro se litigant—that means someone without an attorney-- I’m prohibited from assisting you in any form or fashion. I can’t tell you what the law is; I can’t tell you what you need to do or not do in these proceedings. But anything that you say can be considered testimony by the court, and that’s why I go ahead and put you under oath before we even began.

     Now, these are just motions that are pending. The record indicates that a complaint was filed in this action on or about April 12, 2019. On May 13, 2019, a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure was filed by the city of Ozark. A like motion was filed by defendants Wells Fargo home mortgage, Federal Home Loan Mortgage, and Wells Fargo Bank national on May the 16th. The court has set these motions for hearing today I do know just for the purpose of the record that the sponsors have been filed to these motions by Mr. Mizell.

   And I want to just take an opportunity to tell you that I have actually read all these pleadings, so is not necessary to reiterate everything that is in them. I’m not offended if you feel compelled to do so, but I do read what you file. So, I don’t know if that helps kind of narrow your focus in on your argument here, but these are simply just motion hearings. It is not a full-blown trial as we all know, and I am bound, obviously, by Alabama law edges on our books. This is not a form where we get to act as legislatures and change will what the law says.

     But that being said the city goes or did file his motion to dismiss first. And, obviously, II have to hear them on their motion, and I will give you an opportunity to add anything that you feel necessary to your responses. As I’ve indicated, it’s not necessary to read them to me. But, Mr. Pike, will you or miss standoff the

         MS. STEINDORFF: Your Honor, I’m happy to speak first on behalf of the city of Ozark, and I’ll try to keep this brief based on the fact that Your Honor has already indicated she has reviewed all the pleadings in this matter. But the city of Ozark has adopted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss and has also adopted various pleadings that were filed into the record, certified copies of those pertinent pleadings having to do with the prior Dale County Circuit Court case from, I think, 2015- yes, yes, 2015, then also the probate case from 2017.

    And, Your Honor, there are couple of reasons why Mr. Mizell’s case is due to be dismissed as a matter of Alabama law, but of course the most direct reason is based upon, as we pleaded, clear res judacata. The prior Dale County case dispose of this matter. In fact, this court dismissed a prior case that was all most exactly the same as a matter here. This case is styled as a quiet title action, but the complaint is still the same. The issues arising from the plane are still the same.

     Mr. Mizell is still arguing that Wells Fargo wrongfully foreclosed upon his property and that the city of Ozark’s--- the deed into City of Ozark is void as a matter of law based on that wrongful foreclosure. The court already ruled on that. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. It got put before the probate court. The probate court also ruled the city of Ozarks deed is a valid deed and the city of Ozark has fee simple title in the property. And so, for that reason alone the case against the city of Ozark is due to be dismissed as a matter of law.

      THE COURT: Yes, ma’am. Mr. Mizell did you have anything that you needed to add to the something that to what you already filed?

      MR. MIZELL: ma’am, I’ve been searching now for about 10 or 12 years looking for the holder in due course that I can pay my debt and I was just hoping maybe you can help me get them to present to me so I can pay them. And I’m not really wanting to talk about any of the property etc. the notice was first it must be paid.

       Now, when that case she talked about in ‘15, I think it was, they filed an affidavit from the loan department at Wells Fargo. In that affidavit said that they had sold the note, and he looked at all the records and gave all the paper I still owe them $270,000, and I don’t know why. And I want to see what contract compels me to pay them that extra $270,000. And that’s the main issue with me is how to pay the debt who is the holder in due course? Wells Fargo says they are not, so the law says only the holder in due course can foreclose. So, they foreclosed, and they must have been the holder in due course. Well if they have, they said it had been paid by the sale of the property. Well, the law says that they must surrender the instrument when full payment is made. If they surrendered the instrument, then I know I don’t owe $270,000?

       THE COURT: you think they still say that you owe $270,000?

       MR. MIZELL: according to that affidavit anyway Angeles A&E are a KR USC is what he said this is their affidavit.

        THE COURT: Mr. Andrews you are here on behalf of Wells Fargo; is that correct?

         MR. ANDRESS: Yes, Your Honor.

         THE COURT: is Wells Fargo seeking $270,000 in payment for Mr. Mizell at this point?

         MR. ANDRESS: No, Your Honor.

          THE COURT: okay.

          MR. ANDRESS: In fact, Mr. Mizell wasn’t even on the note, it was his wife.

          THE COURT: Mr. Mizell, they’re not asking you to pay 270,000. You don’t owe that money. Does that- they can’t get that—

           MR. MIZELL: Let them surrender the instrument so we’ll have it over.

           THE COURT: Well, it is over. And that’s- Judge Quattlebaum ruled on that case before I took the bench. And I think we had some post judgment motion that essentially, you know the case was disposed of when it came to me. And then it went up on appeal, and our appellate courts upheld Judge Quattlebaum’s original ruling but they are not- what I’m trying to tell you, if it’ll put your mind at ease a little bit today, is you don’t owe Wells Fargo that money. So, hope that allows you to sleep a little better.

      MR. MIZELL: well I’m a little bit confused because Judge Quattlebaum here correctly agreed in the standards that it was no longer secured it was a check, okay. And, well, if you’re going to foreclose on a check without security, you got to advertise for four weeks. So, they have very intelligent attorneys to assist them, but they only advertised for three weeks, which means they felt they were secured by the property. So is no longer a check, so to me it’s absolutely demanded by law that they present the instruments down paid in full. And when they do that, then I will have peace of mind.

     THE COURT: okay well, all I can tell you is that this point is you don’t owe that money, and you’re going to get an order that says obviously that the case is already been disposed. But if it will satisfy you, that I can put in that order that Wells Fargo is not entitled to collect from you any more money. I don’t mind for that particular piece of property.

     MR. MIZELL: Can you order them to surrender the note? That would make really total compliance with the law. And if they surrender the note, then I’ve agreed to pay the thousand dollars it cost for the document laboratory to verify that it’s what they’re supposed to do. Be a great relief to them and confirm that what they are doing is correct.

      THE COURT: I guess what I don’t want to see happen, Mr. Mizell, is you continue to file the same lawsuit over and over, because that only takes you- it’s a financial burden on you to file these lawsuits.

      MR. MIZELL: Yes, it is.

       THE COURT: and when there’s nothing that I can do because it’s already been litigated, it certainly puts you in a bad position because it’s a waste of your effort and obviously a piece of mine having to break-

      MR. MIZELL: Your Honor, my understanding and I could be wrong that no judge or no state or no legislature no law can be made that will impair their obligation to me and my obligation to them. Okay. Now, are you telling me they don’t have to abide by the obligations, they are exempt?

      THE COURT: That’s not what I’ve said it all.

      MR. MIZELL: I misunderstood, then, sorry.

       THE COURT: Mr. Andress, you waited patiently, let me allow you.

       MR. ANDRESS: thank you, Your Honor. In all due respect to Mr. Mizell, I brought the note to court back in 2015 whenever we had that hearing. He’s filed a pleading saying oh that wasn’t it. And all this is, with candor with the court as I’m obligated as officer of your court, this is a ruse so that he can continue filing the lawsuit that will never stop. And so, Your Honor, we asked that the laws of Alabama be enforced, this case be dismissed upon rescue Takada, and we would also like a statement from the court stopping him from wasting everybody’s time and money. This is 2013 announced 2019. It’s the same case, same argument, and this will never end. And he mistakenly filed a pleading in our case in their case, I didn’t know about it, but it’s the same stuff in that case. And, Your Honor, after 6 years this needs to stop.

      THE COURT: and that’s essentially what I’m trying to explain to Mr. Mizell that he can’t go back and do that. If that note was offered, then it is already admitted into evidence.

        MR. MIZELL: Ma’am, here’s the thing. He made a statement- of course, he’s not sworn and so I don’t know if it’s true or not- but he said in a letter to me I presented that the original promissory note and mortgage during the last hearing with the court. That’s what he said what he presented was not authenticated. I challenge it.

     THE COURT: Yes, sir. But we do have certain- and I’m not trying to give you a lesson in the law, but we do have certain rules of evidence that apply and as a business record, it is self-authenticating.

     MR. MIZELL: Well, now, see, I’m totally confused.

     THE COURT: And I-

     MR. MIZELL: Here’s what he said was he presented it, and what he presented was not what was in this affidavit by the loan department. Said it had already been- let me- I don’t want you to take my word for it, but right here it is. You can see it if you like.

       THE COURT: I have seen it.

        MR. MIZELL: see it says that is paid.- And on top of that and is signed by Heather Parton, assistant secretary of Wells Fargo home mortgage- that they no longer have any interest in it.

        THE COURT: they don’t because it was sold at foreclosure the City of Ozark.

        MR. MIZELL: no, ma’am. This was done before at least 2009 there’s no date on here for sure but it was the first declined 7 0 8 so they disposed of that their interest in it.

    THE COURT: But see, we can’t go back and relitigate that, the other case. All I can do is tell you here today that Wells Fargo is not seeking $270,000 from you, and you don’t owe them $270,000—

     MR. MIZELL: Let me ask you this.

     THE COURT: --because that case has already been disposed.

     MR. MIZELL: She says she represented the city of Ozark and the city of Ozark is a public entity, municipality. The only way they can acquire private property is by eminent domain. And if they had done what they said, presented me the original being paid in full, then I could have sold the property in 2008.

       THE COURT: All of that would have been taken care of by the last case. There is nothing that happened during that proceeding that I can go back and do today.

        Mr. Mizell: let me just make one point and I’ll hush.

      THE COURT: Okay.

       MR. MIZELL: that trial in the probate one was basically discovery it had no standing and no soda matter jurisdiction so all that cases, both of them are null and void by law.

        THE COURT: Well, the problem with that line of-- I was going to say reasoning but I’m trying desperately to help you to understand. When there is an order issued by Circuit Court, there’s a certain timeframe that attaches to it for appeal, okay, that went up on appeal to our Court of Civil Appeals and before the Supreme Court. And that becomes a final judgment. Whether you accept it as such, that’s what the law is, and I can’t go back and undo it. And we don’t get to file the same type actions, regardless of what the title is, I’m required to look at the content of what is filed, not necessarily the title that is placed at the top of the page

          MR. MIZELL: that case was dismissed, okay and the Court of Appeals dismissed. They said affirmed, no opinion.

     THE COURT: Yes, sir. That means they uphold what the trial court did.

     MR. MIZELL: Okay. My interpretation of what dismissed meant in that case was when they found that they had no subject matter jurisdiction, they were required to dismiss the action. I don’t know what particular one. I think I have it here somewhere, but the thing is the law requires that when you have no subject matter jurisdiction and no standing, which they didn’t, because the standing has to be authenticated before can be granted. So that case was dismissed because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing. And I have no different opinion of that because the only thing they can do. They had to do that.

.      THE COURT: Okay. I will certainly take a look at that and then issue an order with regard to this. And I’ve said, I read these pleadings more than once in an effort to get my head around exactly what you’re arguing here, so I will take that matter under advisement and issue orders regarding those motions in that case

     MR. MIZELL: Make one more thing. I do not want to discard or draw attention away from the eminent domain. Can you also consider that I want to transfer the title to them, but they have to do it according to the law eminent domain? Right now, they have no legal title.

     THE COURT: I will take that matter under advisement, also, going to release you unless you have something else to add,

     MR. ANDRESS: We don’t.

     THE COURT:- as I’ve indicated I don’t mean that to talk down to you, but I actually read what was filed so it’s not necessary to read it to me here this morning.

     MS. STEINDROFF: Thank you.

     THE COURT: I will excuse you. That will take care of case number eight, and then will move to number seven which is Lot 8 of Lakeland Hill subdivision.

      MS. STEINDORFF: Thank you, Your Honor.

(End of proceedings.)

 

A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S

 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

 

                              HAYWOOD JACKSON MIZELL

 

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

 

                                    HON. DONALD KEITH ANDRESS

                                    BAKER DONALDSON

                                    420 20TH ST. N., SUITE 1400

                                    BIRMINGHAM, AL 35203 – 3221

 

                                    HON. AMELIA K STEINDORFF

                                    2100 SOUTHBRIDGE PKWY.

                                    STE. 288

                                    BIRMINGHAM, AL 35209

 

                                    HON. JAMES H. PIKE

                                    SHELLEY CRUM & PIKE

                                    PO BOX 6346

                                    DOTHAN, AL 36302 – 6346

 

THE COURT: we are here on June 19, 2019. There are two cases pending before the court in each case there are various motions that have been filed court will address CV 2019 – eight first. This is Haywood Jackson Mizell versus Wells Fargo NA at al. We do have Mr. Don Anderson here for Wells Fargo we have Mr. James Pike and Mrs. Amelia Stein—

     MS. STEINDORFF: STEINDORFF.

     THE COURT: Spell that for me.

      MS STEINDORFF: S-T-E-I-N-D-O-R-F-F.

     THE COURT: Thank you. Representing the city of Ozark. Mr. Mizell is here pro se. Certainly, Mr. Mizell, I’m going to go ahead and ask if you will rage you can just keep your seat but if you raise your right hand.

Haywood Jackson Mizell

having first been duly sworn or affirmed was examined and testified as follows: to wit:

THE COURT: And, of course, the reason I have to do that is because you have every right to represent yourself. But as a pro se litigant—that means someone without an attorney-- I’m prohibited from assisting you in any form or fashion. I can’t tell you what the law is; I can’t tell you what you need to do or not do in these proceedings. But anything that you say can be considered testimony by the court, and that’s why I go ahead and put you under oath before we even began.

     Now, these are just motions that are pending. The record indicates that a complaint was filed in this action on or about April 12, 2019. On May 13, 2019, a motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure was filed by the city of Ozark. A like motion was filed by defendants Wells Fargo home mortgage, Federal Home Loan Mortgage, and Wells Fargo Bank national on May the 16th. The court has set these motions for hearing today I do know just for the purpose of the record that the sponsors have been filed to these motions by Mr. Mizell.

   And I want to just take an opportunity to tell you that I have actually read all these pleadings, so is not necessary to reiterate everything that is in them. I’m not offended if you feel compelled to do so, but I do read what you file. So, I don’t know if that helps kind of narrow your focus in on your argument here, but these are simply just motion hearings. It is not a full-blown trial as we all know, and I am bound, obviously, by Alabama law edges on our books. This is not a form where we get to act as legislatures and change will what the law says.

     But that being said the city goes or did file his motion to dismiss first. And, obviously, II have to hear them on their motion, and I will give you an opportunity to add anything that you feel necessary to your responses. As I’ve indicated, it’s not necessary to read them to me. But, Mr. Pike, will you or miss standoff the

         MS. STEINDORFF: Your Honor, I’m happy to speak first on behalf of the city of Ozark, and I’ll try to keep this brief based on the fact that Your Honor has already indicated she has reviewed all the pleadings in this matter. But the city of Ozark has adopted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss and has also adopted various pleadings that were filed into the record, certified copies of those pertinent pleadings having to do with the prior Dale County Circuit Court case from, I think, 2015- yes, yes, 2015, then also the probate case from 2017.

    And, Your Honor, there are couple of reasons why Mr. Mizell’s case is due to be dismissed as a matter of Alabama law, but of course the most direct reason is based upon, as we pleaded, clear res judacata. The prior Dale County case dispose of this matter. In fact, this court dismissed a prior case that was all most exactly the same as a matter here. This case is styled as a quiet title action, but the complaint is still the same. The issues arising from the plane are still the same.

     Mr. Mizell is still arguing that Wells Fargo wrongfully foreclosed upon his property and that the city of Ozark’s--- the deed into City of Ozark is void as a matter of law based on that wrongful foreclosure. The court already ruled on that. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. It got put before the probate court. The probate court also ruled the city of Ozarks deed is a valid deed and the city of Ozark has fee simple title in the property. And so, for that reason alone the case against the city of Ozark is due to be dismissed as a matter of law.

      THE COURT: Yes, ma’am. Mr. Mizell did you have anything that you needed to add to the something that to what you already filed?

      MR. MIZELL: ma’am, I’ve been searching now for about 10 or 12 years looking for the holder in due course that I can pay my debt and I was just hoping maybe you can help me get them to present to me so I can pay them. And I’m not really wanting to talk about any of the property etc. the notice was first it must be paid.

       Now, when that case she talked about in ‘15, I think it was, they filed an affidavit from the loan department at Wells Fargo. In that affidavit said that they had sold the note, and he looked at all the records and gave all the paper I still owe them $270,000, and I don’t know why. And I want to see what contract compels me to pay them that extra $270,000. And that’s the main issue with me is how to pay the debt who is the holder in due course? Wells Fargo says they are not, so the law says only the holder in due course can foreclose. So, they foreclosed, and they must have been the holder in due course. Well if they have, they said it had been paid by the sale of the property. Well, the law says that they must surrender the instrument when full payment is made. If they surrendered the instrument, then I know I don’t owe $270,000?

       THE COURT: you think they still say that you owe $270,000?

       MR. MIZELL: according to that affidavit anyway Angeles A&E are a KR USC is what he said this is their affidavit.

        THE COURT: Mr. Andrews you are here on behalf of Wells Fargo; is that correct?

         MR. ANDRESS: Yes, Your Honor.

         THE COURT: is Wells Fargo seeking $270,000 in payment for Mr. Mizell at this point?

         MR. ANDRESS: No, Your Honor.

          THE COURT: okay.

          MR. ANDRESS: In fact, Mr. Mizell wasn’t even on the note, it was his wife.

          THE COURT: Mr. Mizell, they’re not asking you to pay 270,000. You don’t owe that money. Does that- they can’t get that—

           MR. MIZELL: Let them surrender the instrument so we’ll have it over.

           THE COURT: Well, it is over. And that’s- Judge Quattlebaum ruled on that case before I took the bench. And I think we had some post judgment motion that essentially, you know the case was disposed of when it came to me. And then it went up on appeal, and our appellate courts upheld Judge Quattlebaum’s original ruling but they are not- what I’m trying to tell you, if it’ll put your mind at ease a little bit today, is you don’t owe Wells Fargo that money. So, hope that allows you to sleep a little better.

      MR. MIZELL: well I’m a little bit confused because Judge Quattlebaum here correctly agreed in the standards that it was no longer secured it was a check, okay. And, well, if you’re going to foreclose on a check without security, you got to advertise for four weeks. So, they have very intelligent attorneys to assist them, but they only advertised for three weeks, which means they felt they were secured by the property. So is no longer a check, so to me it’s absolutely demanded by law that they present the instruments down paid in full. And when they do that, then I will have peace of mind.

     THE COURT: okay well, all I can tell you is that this point is you don’t owe that money, and you’re going to get an order that says obviously that the case is already been disposed. But if it will satisfy you, that I can put in that order that Wells Fargo is not entitled to collect from you any more money. I don’t mind for that particular piece of property.

     MR. MIZELL: Can you order them to surrender the note? That would make really total compliance with the law. And if they surrender the note, then I’ve agreed to pay the thousand dollars it cost for the document laboratory to verify that it’s what they’re supposed to do. Be a great relief to them and confirm that what they are doing is correct.

      THE COURT: I guess what I don’t want to see happen, Mr. Mizell, is you continue to file the same lawsuit over and over, because that only takes you- it’s a financial burden on you to file these lawsuits.

      MR. MIZELL: Yes, it is.

       THE COURT: and when there’s nothing that I can do because it’s already been litigated, it certainly puts you in a bad position because it’s a waste of your effort and obviously a piece of mine having to break-

      MR. MIZELL: Your Honor, my understanding and I could be wrong that no judge or no state or no legislature no law can be made that will impair their obligation to me and my obligation to them. Okay. Now, are you telling me they don’t have to abide by the obligations, they are exempt?

      THE COURT: That’s not what I’ve said it all.

      MR. MIZELL: I misunderstood, then, sorry.

       THE COURT: Mr. Andress, you waited patiently, let me allow you.

       MR. ANDRESS: thank you, Your Honor. In all due respect to Mr. Mizell, I brought the note to court back in 2015 whenever we had that hearing. He’s filed a pleading saying oh that wasn’t it. And all this is, with candor with the court as I’m obligated as officer of your court, this is a ruse so that he can continue filing the lawsuit that will never stop. And so, Your Honor, we asked that the laws of Alabama be enforced, this case be dismissed upon rescue Takada, and we would also like a statement from the court stopping him from wasting everybody’s time and money. This is 2013 announced 2019. It’s the same case, same argument, and this will never end. And he mistakenly filed a pleading in our case in their case, I didn’t know about it, but it’s the same stuff in that case. And, Your Honor, after 6 years this needs to stop.

      THE COURT: and that’s essentially what I’m trying to explain to Mr. Mizell that he can’t go back and do that. If that note was offered, then it is already admitted into evidence.

        MR. MIZELL: Ma’am, here’s the thing. He made a statement- of course, he’s not sworn and so I don’t know if it’s true or not- but he said in a letter to me I presented that the original promissory note and mortgage during the last hearing with the court. That’s what he said what he presented was not authenticated. I challenge it.

     THE COURT: Yes, sir. But we do have certain- and I’m not trying to give you a lesson in the law, but we do have certain rules of evidence that apply and as a business record, it is self-authenticating.

     MR. MIZELL: Well, now, see, I’m totally confused.

     THE COURT: And I-

     MR. MIZELL: Here’s what he said was he presented it, and what he presented was not what was in this affidavit by the loan department. Said it had already been- let me- I don’t want you to take my word for it, but right here it is. You can see it if you like.

       THE COURT: I have seen it.

        MR. MIZELL: see it says that is paid.- And on top of that and is signed by Heather Parton, assistant secretary of Wells Fargo home mortgage- that they no longer have any interest in it.

        THE COURT: they don’t because it was sold at foreclosure the City of Ozark.

        MR. MIZELL: no, ma’am. This was done before at least 2009 there’s no date on here for sure but it was the first declined 7 0 8 so they disposed of that their interest in it.

    THE COURT: But see, we can’t go back and relitigate that, the other case. All I can do is tell you here today that Wells Fargo is not seeking $270,000 from you, and you don’t owe them $270,000—

     MR. MIZELL: Let me ask you this.

     THE COURT: --because that case has already been disposed.

     MR. MIZELL: She says she represented the city of Ozark and the city of Ozark is a public entity, municipality. The only way they can acquire private property is by eminent domain. And if they had done what they said, presented me the original being paid in full, then I could have sold the property in 2008.

       THE COURT: All of that would have been taken care of by the last case. There is nothing that happened during that proceeding that I can go back and do today.

        Mr. Mizell: let me just make one point and I’ll hush.

      THE COURT: Okay.

       MR. MIZELL: that trial in the probate one was basically discovery it had no standing and no soda matter jurisdiction so all that cases, both of them are null and void by law.

        THE COURT: Well, the problem with that line of-- I was going to say reasoning but I’m trying desperately to help you to understand. When there is an order issued by Circuit Court, there’s a certain timeframe that attaches to it for appeal, okay, that went up on appeal to our Court of Civil Appeals and before the Supreme Court. And that becomes a final judgment. Whether you accept it as such, that’s what the law is, and I can’t go back and undo it. And we don’t get to file the same type actions, regardless of what the title is, I’m required to look at the content of what is filed, not necessarily the title that is placed at the top of the page

          MR. MIZELL: that case was dismissed, okay and the Court of Appeals dismissed. They said affirmed, no opinion.

     THE COURT: Yes, sir. That means they uphold what the trial court did.

     MR. MIZELL: Okay. My interpretation of what dismissed meant in that case was when they found that they had no subject matter jurisdiction, they were required to dismiss the action. I don’t know what particular one. I think I have it here somewhere, but the thing is the law requires that when you have no subject matter jurisdiction and no standing, which they didn’t, because the standing has to be authenticated before can be granted. So that case was dismissed because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing. And I have no different opinion of that because the only thing they can do. They had to do that.

.      THE COURT: Okay. I will certainly take a look at that and then issue an order with regard to this. And I’ve said, I read these pleadings more than once in an effort to get my head around exactly what you’re arguing here, so I will take that matter under advisement and issue orders regarding those motions in that case

     MR. MIZELL: Make one more thing. I do not want to discard or draw attention away from the eminent domain. Can you also consider that I want to transfer the title to them, but they have to do it according to the law eminent domain? Right now, they have no legal title.

     THE COURT: I will take that matter under advisement, also, going to release you unless you have something else to add,

     MR. ANDRESS: We don’t.

     THE COURT:- as I’ve indicated I don’t mean that to talk down to you, but I actually read what was filed so it’s not necessary to read it to me here this morning.

     MS. STEINDROFF: Thank you.

     THE COURT: I will excuse you. That will take care of case number eight, and then will move to number seven which is Lot 8 of Lakeland Hill subdivision.

      MS. STEINDORFF: Thank you, Your Honor.

(End of proceedings.)

 

center drugs                   wiregrass medical center