text:
    Leon WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
    No. 2005-CP-01300-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Oct. 24, 2006.
    Leon White, pro se, attorney for appellant.
    W. Daniel Hinchcliff, Office of the Attorney General, attorney for appellee.
    Before MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS, BARNES and ISHEE, JJ.
   GRIFFIS, J.,

for the Court.

¶ 1. Leon White was incarcerated in the Clay County jail on a misdemeanor charge of disturbing the peace. While in custody, White set fire to the mattress in his cell and, on a separate occasion, assaulted a law enforcement officer.

¶ 2. On October 10, 2002, a Clay County grand jury returned a two count indictment against White for arson, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-17-7 (Rev.2000), and simple assault on a law enforcement officer, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-3-7 (Rev.2000). The statutes were identified at the top of the indictment. The portion of the indictment on arson read:

that Leon White ..., on or about the 4th day of September, 2002, in the County aforesaid, did unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously, and maliciously set fire to and burn bedding, of a value in excess of $25.00, at the Clay County Jail which was the personal property of Clay County....

¶3. On July 14, 2003, the circuit court accepted White’s guilty plea. The plea hearing began with the assistant district attorney announcing that White agreed to plea guilty to count 1 of the indictment, which charged White with arson. The court proceeded with an examination of White. The court advised White of his rights and then the following was said:

JUDGE: Is that what you want to do is waive all these rights and plead guilty to the charge of arson of a jail cell?
WHITE: Well, it was just the mattress, your honor.
JUDGE: Right. Well, in the law for arson, all you’ve got to do is light it and set something on fire, whether it’s your mattress or the paint on the wall or the bars. If you burn any part of that facility there, you don’t have to burn it to the ground. All you have to do is burn part of it and that’s enough. Is that what you want to do is plead guilty to the crime of arson.
WHITE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE: For the crime of arson, Mr. White, I must give you at least one year to serve and I could give you up to ten years to serve and I could fine you up to $10,000. Are you aware of the fines and punishment?
WHITE: Yes, sir.
JUDGE: After being advised of all of your constitutional rights, the elements of the offense, and the maximum and minimum sentences and fines, how do you plead to the charge of second degree arson?
WHITE: I plead guilty.

¶4. The State then recommended that White be sentenced to five years incarceration to be followed by five years post-release supervision, with any fine determined by the court. The State also recommended that count 2, simple assault on a law enforcement officer, be retired to the files. The court accepted the State’s sentencing recommendation.

¶ 5. In his motion for post-conviction collateral relief, White argues that the sentence given exceeds the statutory maximum. He argues that Section 97-17-7 provides for a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment, and his total sentence of ten years, five to serve and five on post-release supervision, exceeds the statutory maximum.

¶ 6. In response, the State appears to concede this point without actually saying White is correct. The State admits that this issue is “problematic.” The State continues with the following argument:

The record as it stands, arguably supports White’s contention that his sentence was not the appropriate sentence for the crime to which he plead. While he has failed to provide the indictment under which he was charged, the plea colloquy would indicate that White was charged under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-7, Arson, third degree, which concerns the burning of the personal property of another. Such is the factual basis for the plea as presented by the State. White only admits to setting fire to a mattress. Although an admission at a plea need only admit minimal facts [footnote omitted], it is arguably probable in this case given the statement of underlying facts given by the State that White was in fact indicted under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-7 rather than Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-5 and that some degree of confusion prevailed at the plea hearing. As arson, third degree, provides for a sentence of up to three years, this Court, upon its examination of the existing record, could conceivably find a basis for ordering a hearing herein to determine if Appellant should be re-sentenced.

We recite the Attorney General’s argument verbatim because we view it as a concession and agree with it.

¶ 7. A trial court’s denial of a motion for post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150(113) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). However, when reviewing issues of law, this Court’s standard of review is de novo. Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595, 598(¶ 6) (Miss.1999).

¶ 8. Count 1 of the indictment clearly charged White with the violation of Section 97-17-7, which provides:

Any person who wilfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned, or who aids, counsels or procures the burning of any personal property of whatsoever class or character; (such property being of the value of twenty-five dollars and the property of another person), shall be guilty of arson in the third degree and upon conviction thereof, be sentenced to the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than three years.

(emphasis added).

First degree arson is codified at Mississippi Code Annotated Sections 97-17-1 and 3 (Rev.2000). Second degree arson is at Mississippi Code Annotated Sections 97-17-5 (Rev.2000), and it provides for the burning of any building a sentence of “not less than one nor more than ten years.”

¶ 9. White was charged with third degree arson under Section 97-17-7. The State admits that ‘White was in fact indicted under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-7 rather than Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-5 and that some degree of confusion prevailed at the plea hearing.” The State provides no authority for the proposition that White could possibly plead guilty to a charge that allowed a greater penalty than the charge upon which he was indicted. The State does not provide us with an amended indictment.

¶ 10. Instead, there is no doubt that White was erroneously sentenced under Section 97-17-5, arson in the second degree, which has a maximum sentence of ten years. Unfortunately, neither the district attorney nor White’s attorney recognized this error and brought it to the circuit judge’s attention. The circuit judge proceeded to sentence White under the sentence allowed under Section 97-17-5 instead of Section 97-17-7. The State admits it was “problematic” but offers no authority that would allow us to affirm the sentence or the circuit court’s decision to deny the motion for post-conviction collateral relief.

¶ 11. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s denial of White’s motion for post-conviction collateral relief. We remand for the circuit court to resentence White consistent with the terms of Section 97-17-7, for a maximum term of three years.

¶ 12. We also note that the State made an alternative argument.

In the alternative, if the plea is set aside as the Appellant urges, then pursuant to Myers v. State, 583 So.2d 174, 178 (Miss.1991) and Sanders v. State, 440 So.2d 278, 288 (Miss.1983) White should be subject to being tried on both the arson charge and the charge of simple assault upon a law enforcement officer which was “retired to the files.”

Having read both Myers and Sanders, we find no authority to grant the State’s alternative relief. In both of these cases, the plea was set aside. But, neither case considers a charge “retired to the files.” Here, we do not set aside the plea. White pled guilty to the charge that he was indicted on. There was no amended indictment to charge White with second degree arson. It is clear that White’s sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. The question of whether the State may take action on the charge “retired to the files” was not briefed in this case. Thus, we will allow that issue to remain for another day. We render no decision as to the actions the State may or may not take on the charge that was retired to the files.

¶ 13. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY DISMISSING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO CLAY COUNTY.

KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.

      . This Court obtained a copy of the indictment from the Clay County Circuit Clerk. We take judicial notice of the indictment. The State argues that White failed to attach it to his motion. Indeed, he did. However, the indictment was in the circuit court file and was available to the circuit court and the State. We would have preferred that the State supplement the record to ensure that we had the indictment.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: GRIFFIS, J„

license: Public Domain

text:
    Lawunda C. JONES, Appellant, v. B.L. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and Jimmy Miller, Appellees.
    No. 2005-CA-00955-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Oct. 24, 2006.

      Robert G. Johnston, Cleveland, attorney for appellant.
    Lorrie K Ridder, Jennifer M. Bermel, attorneys for appellees.
    Before KING, C.J., GRIFFIS and BARNES, JJ.
   GRIFFIS, J„

for the Court.

¶ 1. Lawunda C. Jones commenced a lawsuit against her employer, B.L. Development Corporation (“B.L. Development”), and her supervisor Jimmy Miller. After discovery, the circuit court granted a summary judgment in favor of B.L. Development and a partial summary judgment in .favor of Miller. The court certified the judgment as a final judgment under M.R.C.P. 54(b). From this judgment, Jones appeals.

FACTS

¶ 2. Jones was employed as a slot supervisor at the Grand Casino in Robinsonville, Mississippi. Her employer was B.L. Development. Miller was her shift supervisor.

¶ 3. Jones alleged that she was sexually harassed by Miller over a nine month period, from January 2001 to September 2001. Jones asserted that Miller would grab her breasts, legs, and buttocks. He would put his hand in her blouse and bra. He would make vulgar statements to her regarding oral and anal sex. Jones claimed that this conduct occurred in the presence of other B.L. Development employees and shift managers during pre-shift meetings. Jones claimed that Miller’s conduct was not restricted toward her. She contended that there were several other slot supervisors who worked under him, and Miller would do the same things to them. Miller would engage his employees in sexual conversations during every pre-shift meeting, complaining about the things his wife would not do and asking the women if they would do them.

¶ 4. Jones did not report the harassment for a while, because she believed she could put a stop to it. She also believed Miller’s supervisor Rhonda Kennedy would not do anything about it. Whenever Jones would stand up to Miller, he would retaliate by refusing to let her have personal calls. Finally, Jones reported the conduct to Kennedy in September. Kennedy said she knew about it. Kennedy reported the incident to her supervisor Jerry Artigere, who suspended Miller for one week and changed Miller to a different shift. After this, Miller stopped harassing Jones.

¶ 5. Jones also claimed that, after she reported Miller, other of her supervisors ostracized her for getting Miller in trouble and wondered if she was filing a lawsuit. B.L. Development further retaliated against her by refusing to give her the same benefits as the other slot supervisors, such as paid time off.

¶ 6. Jones filed this action and asserted claims for violation of Title VII, assault, battery, negligence per se, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. B.L. Development and Miller filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted B.L. Development’s motion for summary judgment as to all claims filed against it. The circuit court denied Miller’s motion for summary judgment “as to the issue of negligent infliction of emotional distress” and granted partial summary judgment as to all other claims against Miller.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7. This Court employs a de novo standard of review of a lower court’s grant or denial of summary judgment and examines all the evidentiary matters before it — -admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc. McMillan v. Rodriguez, 823 So.2d 1173, 1176-77(¶ 9) (Miss.2002) (citations omitted). The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. Id. at 1177(¶ 9). If, in this view, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should forthwith be entered in his or her favor. Id. Issues of fact sufficient to require reversal of a summary judgment obviously are present where one party swears to one version of the matter in issue and another says the opposite. Id.

ANALYSIS

¶ 8. In her brief, Jones acknowledges that she had no authority to counter B.L. Development’s motion for summary judgment that claimed her Title VII claim was barred, and she does not challenge this issue on appeal. Jones also stated that she does not argue that the claim of common law assault and battery is not barred. Thus, according to Jones, there are four torts for us to consider on appeal: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (3) negligence for violating the simple assault statute, and (4) negligence for violating the stalking/harassment statute. We will follow this order in discussing the issues raised on appeal.

1. Whether Jones’s claim, for intentional infliction of emotional distress was governed by the one-year statute of limitations?

¶ 9. Jones claims that it was error for the court to grant summary judgment on her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. She argues that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is subject to the three-year statute of limitations. Also, Jones argues that this claim does not require a physical manifestation of the injury and, even if it did, she presented evidence of physical manifestation. Miller argues the intentional infliction claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

¶ 10. In granting summary judgment, the court determined that Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-35 barred Jones’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Section 15-1-35 provides:

All actions for assault, assault and battery, maiming, false imprisonment, malicious arrest, or menace, and all actions for slanderous words concerning the person or title, for failure to employ, and for libels, shall be commenced within one (1) year next after the cause of such action accrued, and not after.

The court recognized that the claim asserted was not specifically enumerated in Section 15-1-35. However, the court determined that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is subject to the one-year statute of limitations in Section 15 — 1— 35 and relied on City of Mound Bayou v. Johnson, 562 So.2d 1212, 1217-18 (Miss.1990) and Air Comfort Sys., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 760 So.2d 43, 47 (Miss.Ct.App.2000).

¶ 11. In City of Mound Bayou, the supreme court determined that Section 15-1-35 applies to all intentional torts which are substantially like those enumerated in the statute. City of Mound Bayou, 562 So.2d at 1217-18. In Air Comfort Systems, this Court held:

Negligent misrepresentation and negligent infliction of emotional distress are governed by the “catch-all” three-years statute. Miss Code Ann. § 15-1-49; see Norman v. Bucklew, 684 So.2d 1246, 1256 (Miss.1996); City of Mound Bayou v. Johnson, 562 So.2d 1212, 1217 (Miss.1990). If the claim is seen as intentional and not negligent infliction of emotional distress, a one-year statute of limitations applies. Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-35 (Rev.1995); see Nichols v. Tri-State Brick & Tile Co., 608 So.2d 324 (Miss.1992).

Air Comfort Sys., Inc., 760 So.2d at 47(¶ 19).

¶ 12. In 2001, a federal district court judge noted a conflict of Mississippi law, between the supreme court and this Court, and determined that the Mississippi Supreme Court had applied the three year statute of limitations to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in Norman. Hubbard v. Miss. Conf. of United Methodist Church, 138 F.Supp.2d 780, 781 (S.D.Miss.2001). Jones’s argument rests on this conflict.

¶ 13. We examined this in Slaydon v. Hansford, 830 So.2d 686 (Miss.Ct.App.2002). This Court held “[t]he statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress is also one year.” Id. at 688(¶ 5) (citing McCorkle v. McCorkle, 811 So.2d 258, 263(1111) (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). In a concurring opinion, in Slaydon, Judge Southwick elaborated on the problem with the supreme court’s language used in Norman when he noted:

Discussing the statute of limitations on a wide array of claims ... the [Norman] court closed by stating that the “negligence and intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are governed by the three year statute of limitations.” There is no authority cited anywhere in the opinion as to why that is the statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That one phrase, in which the intentional tort is joined with the negligent one as well as general negligence, is what causes the uncertainty. The phrase itself is clear, but it is also casual.
Our duty as an intermediate appellate court is not to read any precedent in isolation... .When [the Norman court] grouped intentional infliction of emotional distress with certain negligence claims, the Court made no attempt to either undertake or reject the analysis it had a few years earlier decreed was to be followed for determining when the one-year statute on certain intentional torts applies.... First the one year statute does not apply to all intentional torts. Nichols v. Tri-State Brick & Tile Co., 608 So.2d 324, 333 (Miss.1992). Instead “if the conduct alleged may be fairly categorized as one of the enumerated torts, the one-year statute applies.” Id.

Id. at 690 (¶¶ 13-14). We follow our prior decision in Slaydon and will apply the one-year statute of limitations to claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

¶ 14. Here, the evidence indicated that the last instance of Miller’s conduct occurred on September 10, 2001. Jones did not file her complaint until January 2003. Therefore, based on Slaydon, Jones’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is time-barred. We affirm as to this issue.

2. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on Jones’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against B.L. Development ?

¶ 15. We begin this issue by noting that the court bifurcated its analysis on the motion of summary judgment. The court examined Jones’s claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Miller and separately examined Jones’s claim against Miller’s employer, B.L. Development. On the claim against Miller, the court denied the motion finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. M.R.C.P. 56. This conclusion is not an issue on this appeal. On the claim against B.L. Development, the court granted the summary judgment and determined that there was no evidence that B.L. Development was aware of Miller’s misconduct until September of 2001 when Jones reported it.

¶ 16. Jones alleges it was error to grant summary judgment to B.L. Development, because there was sufficient evidence presented to show there was a genuine issue of a material fact as to whether the sexual harassment was committed within the course and scope of Miller’s employment and in furtherance of B.L. Development’s business and/or whether B.L. Development knew or should have known of Miller’s propensity to sexually harass fellow employees. Thus, Jones claims that B.L. Development was vicariously liable for Miller’s misconduct and liable in its own right.

¶ 17. As Miller’s employer, B.L. Development is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees which were committed within the employee’s scope of employment. Odler v. Sumrall, 353 So.2d 1370, 1372 (Miss.1978). An employer is likewise vicariously liable for intentional torts committed in the course and scope of employment, or for those it authorized, or for those it ratified. McClinton v. Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., 792 So.2d 968, 976 (Miss.2001). Where an employer learns of the past intentional conduct and does nothing to reprimand the employee, this acts as a ratification. Royal Oil Co. v. Wells, 500 So.2d 439, 446 (Miss.1986); Allen v. Ritter, 235 So .2d 253, 255-56 (Miss.1970).

¶ 18. Here, Jones presented evidence that three supervisors knew of Miller’s conduct, including Miller’s immediate supervisor Rhonda Kennedy. Jones testified that several of the actions took place in front of assistant shift managers Roy McGee and Clint Blayde. She also testified that when she formally reported the incident to Miller’s supervisor, Kennedy admitted to having known of Miller’s actions. Nothing was done to Miller until Jones reported this incident to Kennedy’s superior Jerry Artigere. There was also testimony that Miller’s conduct was so notorious around the office that everyone knew about it.

¶ 19. Was this conduct within the course and scope of Miller’s employment? Mississippi has relied on the Restatement of Agency to determine the scope of employment. Marter v. Scott, 514 So.2d 1240, 1242-43 (Miss.1987). To be within the scope of employment, the act must be (1) the kind he is employed to perform, (2) occur substantially within the authorized space and time limits, (3) actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master, (4) and if force is intentionally used, it is not unexpected by the master. Id. (quoting Restatement of Agency § 228 (1958)). The general rule is that sexual harassment by a supervisor is not conduct within the scope of employment. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 757, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). Jones’s claim is no different. It fails on the third prong. There is no evidence that Miller’s conduct was actuated in part by a purpose to serve B.L. Development.

¶20. However, “scope of employment does not define the only basis for employer liability under agency principles.” Id. at 758, 118 S.Ct. 2257. A master is subject to liability for the torts of his servant committed outside the scope of employment if the servant was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation. Id. (quoting Restatement of Agency § 219(2)). This standard requires something more than the mere existence of the employment relation itself. Id. at 760, 118 S.Ct. 2257. In cases where a supervisor takes a tangible employment action against an employee, beyond question, that conduct was aided by the agency. Id.

¶ 21. Here, Miller was Jones’s superior. The evidence indicated that when Jones would assert herself and tell Miller to leave her alone, she was denied certain privileges or given extra work. He would call her in his office to train her on counseling her inferiors or on how to work, during which time he would harass her. Further, the evidence was that the slot cards were placed in Miller’s possession, near his desk. Whenever Jones needed to get one, Miller would use the opportunity to grab her. He would also use the paging system to harass Jones. When he would page her, Jones called in, and Miller would give her instructions and then end the conversation with lewd comments to her. Finally, the evidence indicated that Miller used pre-shift meetings as his personal forum to speak, and he would engage his employees in lewd conversations about sex, proposition Jones, and grab her in front of the other employees.

¶ 22. We find that this evidence is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether B.L. Development was liable for Miller’s misconduct as to the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. We reverse summary judgment on this issue and remand for further proceedings.

3. Whether Jones’s claims of “negligence” for violations of the simple assault statute are barred by the statute of limitations?

¶ 23. The circuit court answered this question in the affirmative. The court determined that the statute of limitations, in Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15 — 1— 35, barred Jones’s claims for common law assault and battery and statutory simple assault. Section 15-1-35 provides:

All actions for assault, assault and battery, maiming, false imprisonment, malicious arrest, or menace, and all actions for slanderous words concerning the person or title, for failure to employ, and for libels, shall be commenced within one (1) year next after the cause of such action accrued, and not after.

The court concluded that the “alleged torts of which [Jones] complains occurred no later than September 7, 2001. Hence any action for common law assault or simple assault should have been filed by September 7, 2002. In this case, [Jones] did not file the claim until March 26, 2003.”

¶ 24. On appeal, Jones argues that a violation of a criminal statute is negligence per se, and each statute gives right to a private civil cause of action. B.L. Development characterizes this issue as whether Jones can couch her intentional tort claims in terms of negligence per se to avoid the one-year statute of limitations where she makes allegations of strictly intentional conduct regarding violations of the assault and harassment statutes. Thus, Jones argues that the court was incorrect to apply the one-year intentional tort statute of limitations, Section 15-1-35, instead of the general three-year catch-all statute of limitations, Section 15-1-49.

¶ 25. In City of Mound Bayou, the court held:

[i]t is true that there is a certain amount of negligence language trailing along in Johnson’s [the plaintiff] complaint. This is of no moment, as there can be no escape from the bar of the statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts by the mere refusal to style the cause brought in a recognized statutory category and thereby circumvent prohibition of the statute.

City of Mound Bayou, 562 So,2d at 1215 (citing Dennis v. Travelers Ins. Co., 234 So.2d 624, 626 (Miss.1970)).

¶ 26. We find that the court properly applied Section 15-1-35 to Jones’s claims of common law assault and statutory assault. City of Mound Bayou requires that we apply Section 15-1-35, and all actions for assault and battery must be filed within one year. Jones failed to file these claims within the limitations period. Thus, this issue is without merit.

J. Whether Jones’s claim of negligence for violation of Section 97-3-107(1) is barred by the statute of limitations?

¶ 27. The circuit court answered this question in the affirmative. The court determined that there was no provision in Section 97-3-107(4) for a private or civil claim. The court further determined that even if there were such a claim, it would be barred by the one-year statute of limitations of Section 15-1-35.

¶ 28. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-3-107 (Rev.2000) defines the crime of “stalking,” and it provides:

(1) Any person who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, or who makes a credible threat, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury is guilty of the crime of stalking....
(4) For the purposes of this section, “harasses” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person. “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”
(5) For the purposes of this section, “a credible threat” means a threat made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety.

¶ 29. The evidence indicated that Miller knowingly and willfully engaged in a pattern of conduct for nine months which seriously alarmed and annoyed Jones. The course of conduct revealed a continuity of purpose to sexually harass Jones and to attempt to gratify his lewd inclinations toward her. This was the type of injury meant to be prevented by the statute, and Jones was in the class of persons sought to be protected.

¶ 30. However, under the terms of the statute, it is clear that for a violation to occur the offending conduct must be intentional. In City of Mound Bayou, the supreme court determined that the one-year statute of limitations, Section 15-1-35, applies to all intentional torts which are “substantially like” those enumerated. City of Mound Bayou, 562 So.2d at 1217-18. Any civil action for violation of the stalking statute is so like menace, assault, and libel that it is subject to the one-year statute of limitations. Id. Accordingly, we find no merit to this issue.

¶ 31. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TUNICA COUNTY IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED EQUALLY TO THE PARTIES.

KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.

      . Section 15-1-49(1) provides that "[a]ll actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed shall be commenced within three (3) years next after the cause of such action accrued, and not after.”


author: BARNES, J.,

text:
    Eric GLENN, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
    No. 2005-CP-01036-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Oct. 24, 2006.

      Eric Glenn, Appellant, pro se.
    Office of the Attorney General by John R. Henry, attorney for appellee.
    Before KING, C.J., GRIFFIS and BARNES, JJ.
   BARNES, J.,

for the Court.

¶ 1. Eric Glenn, pro se, appeals the Circuit Court of Lowndes County’s dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief. Finding no error, we affirm.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. In August 1996, Eric Glenn was charged with three counts of the sale of cocaine, and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In November 1999, Glenn entered a plea of guilty to one count of the sale of cocaine; he was subsequently sentenced to serve a term of eighteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. In March 2005, Glenn filed a motion for post-conviction relief in which he alleged that his indictment was fatally defective and that his sentence was illegal; he claimed that intervening decisions of the United State Supreme Court prevented his claim from being procedurally barred by section 99-39-5(2) of the Mississippi Code. The Circuit Court of Lowndes County summarily dismissed Glenn’s motion on the merits without addressing the possibility of procedural bar. On appeal, we agree with the circuit court that Glenn’s motion for post-conviction relief lacks merit; we also find that he has failed to prove any exception to the procedural bar. Accordingly, we affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 3. We will reverse a trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief only upon a finding that the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150(¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2002).

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

¶ 4. A motion for post-conviction relief filed more than three years after the entry of judgment on a guilty plea is procedurally barred. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev.2005). In the instant case, Glenn filed a motion for post-conviction relief over five years after entry of judgment on his guilty plea. Glenn argues that he is excepted from this procedural bar because of two intervening cases by the United States Supreme Court and one intervening Mississippi Supreme Court case which would have adversely impacted the outcome of his conviction or sentence. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev.2005). For each issue presented, this Court will first analyze Glenn’s arguments on the exception to the procedural bar before evaluating his claim on the merits.

I. WHETHER GLENN’S INDICTMENT WAS FATALLY DEFECTIVE

¶ 5. Glenn cites, as intervening case law to circumvent the procedural bar of section 99-39-5(2), Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) for the proposition that all elements of a charge must be contained in the indictment. However, the proposition Glenn cites is not new, but well established law, and thus cannot be considered an “intervening” decision which would have “actually adversely affected” his conviction. Glenn actually cites to a 1951 state supreme court case for the proposition that every element must be alleged in an indictment in order to be effective: Love v. State, 211 Miss. 606, 52 So.2d 470 (1951). Obviously, this law is well established and certainly cannot be considered “intervening” within the meaning of section 99-39-5. We find that Glenn’s citations to Apprendi and Love are insufficient to allow him to evade the procedural bar.

¶ 6. Further, Glenn’s argument on the merits that his indictment was fatally defective because the portion charging him with the sale of cocaine failed to state a specific amount of cocaine allegedly sold is misguided. It is clear that an indictment charging the sale of cocaine pursuant to section 41-29-139 need not state the amount of cocaine allegedly sold. Waites v. State, 872 So.2d 758, 759(¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2004); see also Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-139(b)(l) (Rev.2005). This issue is without merit.

II. WHETHER GLENN’S SENTENCE WAS ILLEGAL

¶ 7. Related to his sentencing, Glenn cites Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) in another attempt to evade the procedural bar. Glenn states this case requires that juries, not judges, examine and agree to facts that could increase prison sentences beyond the statutory scheme as required by the Sixth Amendment. However, Blakely is insufficient to remove Glenn’s case from the procedural bar as his sentence is not beyond the statutory scheme; accordingly, Blakely is inapplicable to this case.

¶ 8. Glenn states that his sentence was illegal and excessive, but his argument is completely baseless. Glenn pleaded guilty to one count of sale of cocaine, which subjected him to a sentence of up to thirty years of imprisonment and/or a fine of between $5,000 and $1 million. See Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(b)(l). Glenn cites a number of statutory provisions regarding the punishment to be levied upon conviction of possession of cocaine or marijuana; however, as Glenn was convicted of the sale of cocaine, these provisions are inap-posite.

¶ 9. “Sentencing is within the complete discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute.” Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 537 (Miss.1996). “Further, the general rule in this state is that a sentence cannot be disturbed on appeal so long as it does not exceed the maximum term allowed by statute.” Id. at 538 (quoting Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302 (Miss.1992)). Glenn’s sentence for sale of cocaine was well within the range authorized by statute; therefore, we find this issue to be without merit.

¶ 10. Because Glenn failed to prove any exception through intervening United States or Mississippi Supreme Court cases under section 99-39-5(2), Glenn’s motion for post-conviction relief is proeedurally barred; it fails on the merits as well.

¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LOWNDES COUNTY.

KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.


author: ROBERTS, J.,

text:
    Stanley HILL, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
    No. 2005-CP-01367-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Oct. 24, 2006.
    Stanley Hill, Appellant, pro se.
    Office of the Attorney General by Jose Benjamin Simo, attorney for appellee.
    Before KING, C.J., CHANDLER and ROBERTS, JJ.
   ROBERTS, J.,

for the Court.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

¶ 1. On March 31, 2003, a grand jury sitting before the Second Judicial District of the Harrison County Circuit Court returned an indictment against Stanley Hill and charged him with the murder of Deto-ria Andreus Butler. The State amended the indictment to reflect a manslaughter charge rather than the original murder charge. On August 10, 2004, Hill filed a petition to plead guilty to manslaughter. That same day the circuit court conducted a guilty plea hearing and accepted Hill’s guilty plea. Consequently, the circuit court sentenced Hill to a fifteen year sentence in the Mississippi Department of Corrections.

¶ 2. On February 28, 2005, Hill filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief. The circuit court overruled Hill’s motion for post-conviction collateral relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Aggrieved, Hill appeals pro se and raises the following issues, listed verbatim:

I. THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND/OR CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI.
II. THERE EXISTS EVIDENCE OF MATERIAL FACTS, NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED AND HEARD, THAT REQUIRES [SIC] A VACATION OF THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WHERE THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PLEA AND WHERE COUNSEL FAILED TO DISCLOSE FACTS THAT PETITIONER ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE.
III. PETITIONER’S PLEA OF GUILTY IS INVOLUNTARY WHERE HE WAS NOT ADVISED BY COUNSEL OR TRIAL JUDGE THAT THE CHARGE HE WAS PLEADING GUILTY TO CARRIED A MINIMUM SENTENCE OF AT LEAST ONE YEAR IN PRISON.
IV. THE AMENDMENT TO THE INDICTMENT AFTER THE PLEA OF NOT GUILTY TO MURDER WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Finding no error, we affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 3. In reviewing a circuit court’s decision to deny a motion for post-conviction collateral relief, our standard of review depends on the issue. We will not disturb the circuit court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Boyd v. State, 926 So.2d 233(¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2005). However, we review questions of law de novo. Id.

ANALYSIS

¶4. Hill failed to sufficiently brief his arguments. Hill’s brief contains a table of contents. That table of contents indicates that Hill’s brief contains nine sections. Hill lists those sections as follows: (a) Certificate of Interested Persons, (b) Table of Contents, (c) Table of Authorities, (d) Statement of Issues, (e) Statement of the Case, (f) Facts, (g) Summary of the Argument, (h) Argument, including four issues, and (i) Conclusion. However, the section for Hill’s argument does not appear in his brief.

¶ 5. Hill only gives us a “summary of the argument.” Under that heading, Hill states:

The defendant was denied due process of law by the court not introducing evidence of the victim’s involvement in a gang membership. Which would have shown a propensity for violence and which would have been relevant to the issue of who was the aggressor.
The defendant truly acted in self-defense. The victim’s brother, and his friends lied to the investigating officer about what happened that night. The victim was truly the aggressor that night.

to be exact, Hill’s argument is insufficient because Hill did not include an argument in his brief. Hill listed four issues, but he failed to elaborate on his point. All that appears is the issue heading. No argument follows.

¶ 6. For example, according to Hill’s heading for issue one, his “conviction and sentence was imposed in violation of the” United States Constitution and Mississippi law. At no point in his brief does Hill elaborate. Hill never indicated how the circuit court violated the U.S. Constitution when it accepted his guilty plea. He failed to inform us of which particular portion of the U.S. Constitution or even which set of constitutional rights the circuit court violated when Hill pled guilty. The same omissions apply to what appears to be Hill’s illegal sentence claim. Likewise, Hill did not indicate how either his conviction or sentence violated Mississippi law or even which Mississippi law or laws they violated. Hill’s other three issues are similarly lacking. There are argument headings, but no argument follows.

¶ 7. Suffice it to say that Hill’s appellate brief is inartfully drafted. Under these circumstances, we will not ignore a meritorious claim for simple inartful drafting. Gatewood v. State, 909 So.2d 754(¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2005). However, the deficiencies in Hill’s brief fall beyond mere inartful drafting.

¶ 8. Not only is there no argument, as required by M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6), there is likewise no citation to any authority. As mentioned, Hill cites five cases but does not cite any one case for any particular argument or proposition. An argument on appeal “shall contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.” M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6). While it is true that there is a table of authorities, not one of those authorities is related to any particular argument. Even if we apply what would amount to undue leniency to the applicable standards of an argument on appeal, Hill’s brief, particularly the lack of any argument or authority, is simply insufficient.

¶ 9. What is more, the record is also insufficient. Hill failed to include a transcript of his guilty plea hearing among the record. This Court only acts upon matters contained in the official record and not upon assertions in briefs. Fairley v. State, 812 So.2d 259, 268(¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). We are forbidden from considering matters that do not appear in the record. Robinson v. State, 662 So.2d 1100, 1104 (Miss.1995).

¶ 10. Finally, no sworn affidavits accompanied Hill’s motion for post-conviction relief. Section 99 — 39—9(l)(e) of the Mississippi Code (Rev.2000) requires that Hill furnish affidavits to support his claims or show cause as to why he could not furnish them. Hill has not furnished affidavits, nor has he showed cause as to why he could not furnish them.

¶ 11. Due to Hill’s insufficient brief, failure to cite authority, insufficient record, and lack of affidavits, we can find no error in the circuit court’s decision to overrule Hill’s motion for post-conviction collateral relief. Accordingly, we affirm.

¶ 12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.

KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.


author: KING, C.J.,

text:
    Angus Laughton Malcolm Thom McLEAN, III, Appellant, v. Leigh Ann (McLean) KOHNLE, Appellee.
    Nos. 2005-CA-00033-COA, 2005-CA-02140-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Oct. 24, 2006.
    J. Mack Varner, Jennifer Powell Fort-ner, Clifford C. Whitney, Vicksburg, attorneys for appellant.
    William B. Jacob, Joseph A. Kieronski, Daniel P. Self, Meridian, attorneys for ap-pellee.
    Before KING, C.J., SOUTHWICK and IRVING, JJ.
   KING, C.J.,

for the Court.

¶ 1. Angus Laughton Malcolm Thom McLean III appeals the chancellor’s order that he be required, under the terms of the judgment of divorce, to bear the entire cost of his daughter’s college education, that his failure to bear the entire expense of that education constituted contempt of court, and that he pay Kohnle’s attorney’s fees and costs. On appeal, McLean challenges the court’s jurisdiction and raises issues regarding various errors in the chancellor’s findings.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. Leigh Ann McLean Kohnle filed her Complaint for Modification of prior judgment and complaint for citation for contempt against her ex-husband, Angus Laughton Malcolm Thom McLean III on February 13, 2004, seeking an increase in child support and an order citing McLean for contempt for refusing to bear the entire cost of his daughter’s college expenses at Harvard University. McLean filed a motion to dismiss under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction over the case. McLean contended that under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, codified at Mississippi Code Annotated Sections 93-25-1 through 93-25-117 (Rev. 2004)., Virginia was the proper jurisdiction in which to hear Mrs. Kohnle’s complaint. Prior to the court’s ruling on the matter, Kohnle withdrew the portion of her petition requesting a modification of child support, leaving the issue of the daughter’s college expenses as the sole matter before the court. The trial court denied McLean’s motion to dismiss and his subsequent motion to reconsider.

¶ 3. McLean then filed his answer and a cross-petition for a citation of contempt. Following a one-day trial, the court issued an order dated June 18, 2004, finding McLean in contempt, ordering him to bear all of the daughter’s college expenses (including reimbursement of those expenses previously paid by Kohnle), and assessing costs and fees to McLean. The chancellor ordered incarceration based upon the finding of contempt but suspended that order on the condition that McLean meet certain requirements related to the payment of his daughter’s college expenses. Following an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration, McLean appealed the chancellor’s order.

¶4. In March 2005 and again in May 2005, Kohnle filed two additional complaints seeking a contempt citation, alleging that McLean had failed to meet the conditions set forth in the court’s June 18, 2004, order. McLean argued that by posting of a supersedeas bond pending the outcome of his appeal, he had satisfied the court’s order that he pay future college expenses. On June 20, 2004, the trial court ordered McLean to reimburse Kohn-le for the outstanding expenses that she had paid as a result of McLean’s failure to do so and to pay Kohnle’s attorney’s fees incurred as a result of bringing the additional complaints. The court further held that the supersedeas bond, while staying payment of the monetary judgment, did not affect McLean’s obligation to make future payments as set forth in the court’s June 18, 2004, order and ordered that McLean pay his daughter’s continuing college expenses at Harvard while his appeal to this Court was pending.

¶ 5. McLean then filed a Motion to Reconsider Jurisdiction and to Determine Controlling Order. On September 27, 2005, the trial court heard McLean’s motion. The chancellor denied the motion to reconsider, ruled that the original judgment of divorce — issued from the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County, Mississippi, in 1990 — was the controlling order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act and ordered McLean to spend weekends in jail for contempt, effective immediately, until and unless he purged himself of contempt. McLean appealed that order, and the two cases were consolidated.

FACTS

¶ 6. In 1990, the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County, Mississippi granted a judgment of divorce to McLean and Kohn-le. At the time of the divorce, the couple had two minor children. The court adopted the parties’ custody and property settlement agreement as part of that judgment. In that agreement, the couple agreed that McLean would be responsible for paying child support in the amount of $900 per month, would bear the cost of the children’s health insurance and medical expenses, and, should the children attend college, “would pay all reasonable expenses incurred in connection therewith to the best of his financial ability.”

¶ 7. After the divorce, McLean relocated to Georgia. Kohnle remarried and moved with the children to Virginia, then to Puer-to Rico, and back to Virginia. During Kohnle’s first period of residency in Virginia, the parties reached an impasse regarding the interpretation of the terms of the divorce decree. In 1997, Kohnle filed a motion to modify child support in Virginia. McLean submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Virginia court and filed a cross-petition regarding visitation issues.

¶ 8. On January 14, 1998, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Fairfax County, Virginia issued an order on those motions. The Virginia court held that while the amount of child support would not increase, the manner in which McLean made payments to Kohnle would change. The court also found that McLean was in arrears on both child support and payment of medical expenses and ordered payment of those amounts. The court also ordered that, if the children were eligible for coverage under their stepfather’s insurance (which they were), McLean would no longer be responsible for the expense of insurance coverage. Additionally, the court set forth a detailed visitation schedule and scheduling procedure and ordered that McLean bear the cost of all travel for visitation. Finally, the court held that the remaining terms of the Mississippi judgment of divorce not modified by its order would remain in full force and effect.

¶ 9. The parties returned to the Virginia court again in 2000 to further delineate the visitation schedule and procedures for arranging visitation. Thereafter, the parties did not avail themselves of any court until Kohnle filed her petition in Mississippi in February 2004, asking for an increase in child support and an order that the court enforce the 1990 decree and hold McLean responsible for bearing all of the costs of his daughter’s college education at Harvard.

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

¶ 10. In domestic relations cases, the Court’s scope of review is limited to the substantial evidence/manifest error rule. See Sproles v. Sproles, 782 So.2d 742, 746(¶ 13) (Miss.2001). This Court may reverse a chancellor’s findings of fact only when there is no substantial credible evidence in the record to justify her findings. This Court will not disturb a chancellor’s findings unless manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous or unless the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard. See id.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

¶ 11. McLean argues that the Lauder-dale Chancery Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. McLean contends that Virginia assumed continuing, exclusive jurisdiction when it modified his obligations to provide child support and continues to exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Kohnle argues that Mississippi is the proper venue for this case because the Virginia court did not modify the portions of the Mississippi judgment of divorce addressing payment of college expenses, because Mississippi never relinquished its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, and because Mississippi would continue to exercise continuing jurisdiction to enforce its decree, even if Virginia had modified the original Mississippi judgment of divorce.

¶ 12. Whether the trial court has jurisdiction to hear a particular matter is a question of law to which this Court must apply a de novo standard of review. See Edwards v. Booker, 796 So.2d 991, 994(¶ 9) (Miss.2001). A party may challenge the court’s subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the proceedings. See Esco v. Scott, 735 So.2d 1002, 1005(¶ 14) (Miss.1999).

¶ 18. In the order on McLean’s motion to dismiss, the chancellor held that, under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), codified at Mississippi Code Annotated Sections 93-25-1 through 93-25-117, Mississippi retained continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify and continuing jurisdiction to enforce the 1990 Lauderdale County judgment of divorce. Although the chancellor did not explicitly hold that the 1990 decree was the controlling order for purposes of applying the UIFSA, her finding that Mississippi retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction implies that she considered the 1990 decree to be the controlling order. Subsequently, in the order on McLean’s Motion to Reconsider Jurisdiction and Determine Controlling Order, the chancellor did make a specific finding that the 1990 decree was the controlling order under the UIFSA.

¶ 14. The UIFSA exists to create a clearly-defined system with regard to the administration, enforcement, and modification of child support orders. Under the UIFSA, as adopted and codified in the Mississippi Code Annotated, a Mississippi court may modify and/or enforce a child support order under limited circumstances. In order for a Mississippi court to have the authority to modify a child support order, Mississippi must have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-17 (Rev.2004).

¶ 15. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 93-25-17 sets forth the criteria for establishing continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. McLean argues that the 1998 Virginia order modified the 1990 decree and, therefore, established Virginia as the state with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Kohnle contends that because the parties did not comply with Mississippi Code Annotated Section 93 — 25—17(l)(b), which states that the parties were required to file notice with the Lauderdale County Chancery Court that Virginia would be assuming continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, Mississippi retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Kohnle also argues that the 1990 decree remains the controlling order because the 1998 Virginia order did not modify the amount of child support that McLean was required to pay — only the manner in which he paid it.

¶ 16. Under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 93-25-17, continuing, exclusive jurisdiction exists in Mississippi in this case only if the following conditions are met: the 1990 decree is the controlling order and (1) one of the interested parties (McLean, Kohnle, or the child) resides in Mississippi or (2) the parties consent to have Mississippi serve as the state with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-17(1). Additionally, subsections (2) and (3) of the statute set forth the circumstances under which Mississippi shall not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

¶ 17. While this Court agrees with Kohnle’s assertion that Section 93-25-17(2) provides a process by which the parties may choose to transfer continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to another state, that process is not the only means by which a state may lose its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. This Court disagrees with her contention that the parties’ failure to file the required consent in Mississippi pri- or to seeking relief in the Virginia courts in 1997 is proof that Mississippi retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 93-25-17(3) states that another state may take continuing, exclusive jurisdiction from the issuing tribunal. The relevant language of this section states that “[i]f a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to this chapter or to a law substantially similar to this chapter which modifies a child support order of a tribunal of the state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.” Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-17(3)(emphasis added). As the Court held in Nelson v. Halley, 827 So.2d 42, 48(¶ 22) (Miss.Ct. App.2002), “[o]nce both parents and the child have left the original state, the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of that state’s tribunal may well have terminated, but its order remains in effect and enforceable until it is modified by another tribunal with authority to do so.” With McLean’s relocation to Georgia and Kohnle’s move, with the minor children, to Virginia, the 1990 decree remained in effect and was enforceable until Virginia modified the order in 1998 as a result of Kohnle’s 1997 petition for modification.

¶ 18. The Court holds that the chancellor erred in the first step of the analysis when she determined, implicitly in her December 2004 Order and explicitly in her Order on McLean’s Motion to Reconsider Jurisdiction and Determine Controlling Order, that the 1990 decree was the controlling order. The 1998 Virginia order eliminated McLean’s obligation, as set forth in the 1990 decree, to bear the cost of providing medical insurance for his two minor children. Through that order, the Virginia court modified the support order contained in the 1990 decree. Once the Virginia court modified the 1990 decree, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 93-25-17(3), the Virginia order became the controlling order, and Virginia assumed continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 93-25-17(3) to modify the terms of that order. As this Court previously has held, “[i]f the state court does not have [continuing, exclusive jurisdiction], the state court should not act.” Nelson, 827 So.2d at 46(¶ 19). Accordingly, the chancellor should have concluded that Mississippi did not have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and, therefore, did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Kohnle’s petition.

¶ 19. In order for the chancellor to have concluded properly that she had the authority to hear Kohnle’s petition, Mississippi would have to reclaim continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Under the UIFSA, Mississippi could only reassume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, which would enable it to modify the terms of the Virginia order, if the parties registered the Virginia order in Mississippi utilizing the procedure outlined in Mississippi Code Annotated Sections 93-25-81 through 93-25-87 and if the requirements of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 93-25-101 were met. The record clearly shows that the parties did not even attempt to register the Virginia order in Mississippi, either at the time it was issued in 1998 or at the onset of the trial court proceedings, much less prove that they met the necessary requirements of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 93-25-101 for Mississippi to reassume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

¶ 20. Additionally, the Court finds that the chancellor erred in holding that Mississippi also retained continuing jurisdiction to enforce the 1990 decree. As discussed supra, because the Virginia order modified the provision of the 1990 decree requiring McLean to provide health insurance for his children, the Virginia order became the controlling order. Accordingly, even if the chancellor had held that the Virginia order was the controlling order and that she was assuming subject matter jurisdiction to enforce, not modify, the Virginia decree, the UIFSA requires that the Virginia order be registered with the court in Mississippi before enforcement proceedings could be heard. See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 93-25-81 through 93-25-87. Again, neither party has even attempted to register the Virginia order

¶ 21. Because the Virginia court maintains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the UIFSA, Mississippi does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear Kohn-le’s petition for modification and citation for contempt. The Court, therefore, does not reach the remaining points of error raised in McLean’s brief.

¶ 22. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF LAUDER-DALE COUNTY IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE AP-PELLEE.

LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

      . As discussed in the "Facts” section, infra, The Chancery Court of Lauderdale County, Mississippi, issued the original Judgment of Divorce in 1990. In 1997, Kohnle sought a modification of the decree in Virginia, where she had moved after the divorce. McLean, who was and is a resident of Georgia, submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court in Virginia and filed a cross-petition regarding visitation. The Virginia court, addressed the visitation issues, modified the portion of the original judgment addressing the allocation of health care expenses for the minor children, and adopted the unmodified portions of the 1990 decree. Thereafter, the parties availed themselves of the Virginia court in 2000 to handle additional visitation disputes. After 2000, the parties did not petition any court regarding the Judgment of Divorce until February 2004, when Kohnle filed the petition that is the subject of this appeal.

      . Mississippi's codification of the UIFSA defines a "support order" as a "judgment, decree or order, whether temporary, final or subject to modification, for the benefit of a child, a spouse or a former spouse, which provides for monetary support, health care, arrearages or reimbursement and may include related costs and fees, interest, income withholding, attorney’s fees and other relief.” Miss.Code Ann. § 93-25-3(w) (Rev.2004) (emphasis added).


author: BOLIN, Justice.

text:
    H & S HOMES, L.L.C. v. William SHANER and Patrick Pritchett.
    1040444.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Feb. 3, 2006.
    As Modified on Denial of Rehearing April 28, 2006.

      David L. Selby II and Jon M. Hughes of Kee & Selby, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant.
    Michael S. Harper, Tallassee; and Frank H. Hawthorne, Jr., of Hawthorne & Myers, Montgomery, for appellees.
   BOLIN, Justice.

William Shaner purchased a manufactured home from H & S Homes, L.L.C., on October 12, 1999. In conjunction with the purchase, Shaner executed a “Manufactured Home Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreement,” which designated Green Tree Financial Corporation as the assignee of the installment contract. The installment contract contains the following arbitration agreement:

“ARBITRATION: All disputes, claims, or controversies arising from or relating to this Agreement or the relationships which result from this Agreement, or the validity of this arbitration clause or the entire Agreement, shall be resolved by binding arbitration by one arbitrator selected by you with my consent. This arbitration agreement is made pursuant to a transaction involving interstate commerce, and shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, Title 9 of the United States Code. Judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The parties agree and understand that they choose arbitration instead of litigation to resolve disputes. The parties understand that they have a right or opportunity to litigate disputes in court, but that they prefer to resolve their disputes through arbitration, except as provided herein. THE PARTIES VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT THEY HAVE TO A JURY TRIAL, EITHER PURSUANT TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CLAUSE OR PURSUANT TO A COURT ACTION BY YOU (AS PROVIDED HEREIN). The parties agree and understand that all disputes arising under case law, statutory law and all other laws including, but not limited to, all contract, tort, and property disputes, will be subject to binding arbitration in accord with this agreement. I agree that I shall not have the right to participate as a representative or a member of any class of claimants pertaining to any claim arising from or relating to this Agreement. The parties agree and understand that the arbitrator shall have all powers provided by law and the Agreement. These powers shall include all legal and equitable remedies, including, but not limited to judicial or nonjudicial relief to enforce a security agreement relating to the collateral secured in a transaction underlying this arbitration agreement, to enforce the monetary obligation or to foreclose on the collateral. Such judicial relief would take the form of a lawsuit. The institution and maintenance of an action for judicial relief in a court to foreclose upon any collateral, to obtain a monetary judgment including the filing of a counterclaim in a suit brought by you pursuant to this provision.
“WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL: I HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY THAT I HAVE IN ANY SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION BETWEEN ME AND THE SELLER, OR ME AND ANY ASSIGNEE OF THE SELLER, WHERE SUCH LITIGATION ARISES OUT OF, IS RELATED TO, OR IS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS CONTRACT WHETHER THE CONTRACT IS ASSERTED AS THE BASIS FOR A CLAIM, COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSSCLAIM, OR A DEFENSE TO A CLAIM, COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSSCLAIM.”

(Capitalization in original.) Simultaneously with the signing of the installment contract and in connection with the purchase of the manufactured home, Shaner executed a second arbitration agreement, which reads as follows:

“All disputes, claims, or controversies arising from or relating to the Contract or the relationships which result from the Contract, or the validity of this arbitration clause or the entire Contract, shall be resolved by binding arbitration by one arbitrator selected by Assignee with consent of Buyer(s). This arbitration Contract is made pursuant to a transaction in interstate commerce, and shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act at 9 U.S.C. Section 1. Judgment upon the award rendered may be entered into any court having jurisdiction. The parties agree and understand that they choose arbitration instead of litigation to resolve disputes. The parties understand that they have a right or opportunity to litigate disputes through a court but they prefer to resolve their disputes through arbitration, except as provided herein.
“THE PARTIES VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY WAIVE ANY RIGHT THEY HAVE TO A JURY TRIAL EITHER PURSUANT TO ARBITRATION UNDER THIS CLAUSE OR PURSUANT TO A COURT ACTION BY ASSIGNEE (AS PROVIDED HEREIN).
“The parties agree and understand that all disputes arising under case law, statutory law, and all other laws including, but not limited to, all contract, tort and property disputes, will be subject to binding arbitration [in] accord with this Contract. The parties agree and understand that the arbitrator shall have all powers provided by the law and the Contract. These powers shall include all legal and equitable remedies, including, but not limited to, money damages [and] declaratory relief. Notwithstanding anything hereunto to the contrary, Assignee retains an option to use judicial or non-judicial relief to enforce a security agreement relating to the Manufactured [H]ome secured in a transaction underlying this arbitration agreement, to enforce the monetary obligation secured by the Manufactured Home or to foreclose on the Manufactured Home. Such judicial relief would take the form of a lawsuit. The institution and maintenance of an action for judicial relief in a court to foreclose upon any security agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the right of any party to compel arbitration regarding any other dispute or remedy subject to arbitration in this Contract, including the filing of a counterclaim in a suit brought by Assignee pursuant to this provision.”

(Capitalization in original.)

On June 4, 1999, Patrick Pritchett purchased a manufactured home from H & S Homes. In connection with the purchase of the manufactured home, Pritchett executed a “Retail Installment Contract, Security Agreement, Waiver of Trial By Jury And Agreement to Arbitration or Reference or Trial By Judge Alone,” which named GreenPoint Credit Corporation as the assignee/creditor. This installment contract contained an arbitration agreement that reads as follows:

“Dispute Resolution. Any controversy or claim between or among you and me or our assignees arising out of or relating to this Contract or any agreements or instruments relating to or delivered in connection with this Contract, including any claim based on or arising from an alleged tort, shall, if requested by either you or me, be determined by arbitration, reference, or trial by a judge as provided below. A controversy involving only a single claimant, or claimants who are related or asserting claims arising from a single transaction, shall be determined by arbitration as described below.
“Arbitration. Since this Contract touches and concerns interstate commerce, an arbitration under this Contract shall be conducted in accordance with the Unites States Arbitration Act (Title 9, United States Code), notwithstanding any choice of law provision in this Contract. The Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association (‘AAA’) also shall apply. The arbitrator(s) shall follow the law and shall give effect to statutes of limitation in determining any claim. Any controversy concerning whether an issue is arbitrable shall be determined by the arbitrator(s). The award of the arbitrator(s) shall be in writing and include a statement of reasons for the award. The award shall be final. Judgment upon the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction, and no challenge to entry of judgment upon the award shall be entertained except as provided by Section 10 of the United States Arbitration Act or a upon a finding of manifest injustice.”

Simultaneously with the signing of the installment contract, Pritchett signed a separate arbitration agreement identical to the stand-alone arbitration agreement signed by Shaner.

Shaner and Pritchett subsequently asserted claims of fraud, conversion, and negligence and wantonness against H & S Homes. Pursuant to the terms of the stand-alone arbitration agreement, Shaner agreed on May 25, 2004, to Green Tree’s selection of attorney Frank Wilson to arbitrate Shaner’s claims against H & S Homes. Likewise, pursuant to the terms of the stand-alone arbitration agreement executed by Pritchett, he agreed on June 15, 2004, to GreenPoint Credit’s selection of attorney J. Greg Allen to arbitrate his claims against H & S Homes.

On June 18, 2004, Shaner served the following demand for arbitration on H & S Homes:

“The named claimant, a party to an arbitration agreement contained in a written contract dated October 22, [sic] 1999, and providing for arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules established by the American Arbitration Association, hereby demands arbitration under such rules.
“The arbitrator selected to hear this case pursuant to the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties is Frank Wilson, Esquire.”

On July 8, 2004, Pritchett served the following demand for arbitration on H & S Homes:

“The named claimant, a party to an arbitration agreement contained in a written contract dated June 4, 1999, and providing for arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules established by the American Arbitration Association, hereby demands arbitration under such rules.
“The arbitrator selected to hear this case pursuant to the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties is J. Greg Allen, Esquire.”

Neither Shaner nor Pritchett filed his demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”).

On July 1, 2004, H & S Homes objected to the selection of Frank Wilson as arbitrator in Shaner’s case and to Shaner’s failure to file his demand for arbitration with the AAA. H & S Homes argues that Shaner’s failure to file his demand for arbitration with the AAA violates the arbitration agreement. Likewise, on July 28, 2004, H & S Homes objected to the selection of J. Greg Allen as arbitrator in Pritchett’s case and to Pritchett’s failure to file his demand for arbitration with the AAA. As with Shaner, H & S Homes contends that Pritchett’s failure to file his demand for arbitration with the AAA violates the arbitration agreement.

Shaner and Pritchett sued H & S Homes seeking a judgment declaring that the AAA shall not administer the arbitration between the parties and an injunction enjoining H & S Homes from involving the AAA in the matters. H & S Homes answered and counterclaimed, seeking an order determining that Shaner and Pritchett are required to submit their claims to arbitration in accordance with AAA rales and that the AAA is required to administer their arbitration claims.

On October 25, 2004, Shaner and Pritch-ett moved the trial court for a summary judgment seeking a determination that the arbitrators were properly selected in accordance with the terms of the arbitration agreement and that the AAA is not required to administer the arbitration proceedings. On November 1, 2004, H & S Homes moved the trial court for a summary judgment on the basis that Shaner and Pritchett were required to submit their claims to the AAA and that the AAA is required to administer Shaner’s and Pritchett’s claims.

The trial court, on November 9, 2004, entered an order granting Shaner and Pritchett’s motion for a summary judgment and holding that Wilson and Allen would serve as the arbitrators in the respective cases and that the AAA shall not administer the arbitration proceedings in these cases. H & S Homes filed a post-judgment motion, which the trial court denied. H & S Homes appeals.

We review a summary judgment de novo. Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 886 So.2d 72, 74 (Ala.2003). We apply the same standard of review as the trial court applied. Specifically, we must determine whether the movant has made a prima facie showing that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. Hodurski, 899 So.2d 949, 952 (Ala.2004). In making such a determination, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Wilson v. Brown, 496 So.2d 756, 758 (Ala.1986). Once the movant makes a prima facie showing that he is entitled to a summary judgment, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to produce “substantial evidence” creating a genuine issue of material fact. § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975; Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala.1989). “Substantial evidence” is “evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.” West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).

We consider the dispositive issues on appeal to be whether the trial court properly interpreted and applied the parties’ arbitration agreements in ordering that Wilson and Allen serve as the arbitrators in the respective arbitration proceedings and that those arbitration proceedings are not to be administered by the AAA. H & S Homes argues on appeal that Shaner and Pritchett had demanded arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA and that, when parties agree to arbitrate under the AAA rules, they authorize, pursuant to Rule 2 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules, the administration of the arbitration by the AAA. H & S Homes further argues that under its Commercial Arbitration Rules the AAA has the important tasks of receiving the arbitrator’s disclosure statement and determining whether the arbitrator should be disqualified for grounds such as impartiality or lack of independence. Thus, H & S Homes contends, the trial court’s order determining that the AAA shall not administer the arbitration proceedings in these cases denies H & S Homes the opportunity to have an independent body determine whether the arbitrator in each case is impartial.

“Arbitration agreements are governed by general principles of contract law.” McDonald v. H & S Homes, L.L.C., 853 So.2d 920, 923 (Ala.2003). An order compelling arbitration will be reversed when it appears that the trial court failed to compel arbitration in a manner consistent with the terms of the arbitration provision. 853 So.2d at 925. Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act mandates that the method set forth in the arbitration agreement for choosing an arbitrator be followed. Id.

In McDonald, a case factually similar to the present case, McDonald entered into a contract to purchase a manufactured home from H & S Homes. At the time of the purchase, McDonald executed a retail installment contract and security agreement that named GreenPoint Credit Corporation as the assignee of the installment contract. The installment contract contained the same arbitration provision as was in the installment contract entered into by Pritchett. Simultaneously with the signing of the installment contract, McDonald executed a purchase contract with H & S Homes that referenced a separate standalone arbitration agreement. This standalone arbitration agreement is identical to the stand-alone arbitration agreements signed by Shaner and Pritchett.

Subsequently, McDonald sued H & S Homes, alleging various theories of recovery arising out of the purchase of the manufactured home. H & S Homes moved the trial court to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration and ordered McDonald to arbitrate her claims. McDonald moved the trial court for an order clarifying the arbitration agreement; she explained in her motion that she had signed two arbitration agreements in connection with her purchase of the manufactured home and that the parties could not agree on which agreement controlled the dispute, i.e., the installment contract, which stated that the AAA rules shall apply, or the stand-alone agreement, which provided that the arbitrator would be selected by the assignee with the consent of the buyer. The trial court entered an order concluding that the two arbitration provisions had been executed as part of a continuing transaction and should be read and construed “ ‘as if in one form.’ ” 853 So.2d at 922.

Thereafter, McDonald’s attorney contacted the attorney for GreenPoint Credit, the assignee under the installment contract, and, without notice to H & S Homes, mutually agreed that attorney Kenneth Mendelsohn would arbitrate McDonald’s claims against H & S Homes. H & S Homes moved the trial court to set aside as invalid the selection of Mendelsohn as arbitrator, arguing that he had not been selected pursuant to the procedures set forth in the installment contract. The trial court entered an order setting aside the selection of Mendelsohn as arbitrator and ordering that McDonald and H & S Homes select an arbitrator in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA. Id.

Relying upon general principles of contract law, this Court reversed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the trial court’s order required the selection of an arbitrator in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. This Court stated:

“First, we note that the trial court’s order of October 3, 2001, specifically found that both the stand-alone arbitration agreement and the arbitration provision in the installment contract should be read together and should be construed as if combined in one document. If those agreements are read together as if contained in one ‘consolidated arbitration agreement,’ the resulting agreement between H & S and McDonald would read, in part:
“ ‘Any controversy or claim between or among you and me or our assignees arising out of or relating to this Contract or any agreements or instruments relating to or delivered in connection with this Contract, ... shall be determined by arbitration ... as provided below.
“ ‘... The Commercial Rules of the AAA also shall apply.
“ ‘All disputes, claims, or controversies arising from or relating to the Contract or the relationships which result from the Contract, or the validity of this arbitration clause or the entire Contract shall be resolved by binding arbitration by one arbitrator selected by Assignee with consent of Buyer(s).’
“Second, we note that H & S and McDonald are parties to all of the agreements at issue in this dispute; those agreements specifically identify Green-Point Credit as the assignee.
“The procedure set forth in the Commercial Rules of the AAA for selecting an arbitrator is applicable only when the parties have not appointed an arbitrator and when the parties have not provided another method for the appointment of an arbitrator.
“In this case, the parties have established a method for appointing an arbitrator. At the time McDonald purchased the manufactured home from H & S, H & S and McDonald agreed as follows:
“ ‘All disputes, claims, or controversies arising from or relating to the Contract or the relationships which result from the Contract, or the validity of this arbitration clause or the entire Contract, shall be resolved by binding arbitration by one arbitrator selected by Assignee with consent of Buyer(s) .... ’
“Because the parties to this dispute have provided a method for appointing an arbitrator and because Mendelsohn was appointed pursuant to that agreed-upon method, we find that McDonald has complied with the trial court’s October 3, 2001, order.”

853 So.2d at 924-25.

The parties in this case entered into stand-alone arbitration agreements identical to the stand-alone arbitration agreement entered into by the parties and construed by this Court in McDonald. Reading the arbitration provisions in the retail installment contracts and the standalone arbitration agreements in this case together, as required by McDonald, we conclude that, like the parties in McDonald the parties in this case have provided a method of selecting an arbitrator, and because Wilson and Allen were selected as arbitrators in the respective proceedings in accordance with that method, we affirm the trial court’s judgment insofar as it orders that Wilson and Allen serve as arbitrators in those arbitration proceedings.

We next determine whether the trial court correctly ordered that the AAA shall not administer the arbitration proceedings in this case. “When a court construes a contract, ‘the clear and plain meaning of the terms of the contract are to be given effect, and the parties are presumed to have intended what the terms clearly state.’ ” Polaris Sales, Inc. v. Heritage Imports, Inc., 879 So.2d 1129, 1133 (Ala.2003) (quoting Strickland v. Rahaim, 549 So.2d 58, 60 (Ala.1989)).

With regard to Pritchett, a plain reading of the arbitration provision contained in the installment contract and the stand-alone arbitration agreement signed by Pritchett clearly shows that Pritchett, H & S Homes, and the assignee Green-Point Credit specifically agreed that the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA “shall apply” to any arbitration proceedings arising from the purchase of the man-ufaetured home. Rule 2 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA provide in part as follows: “When parties agree to arbitrate under these rules ... they thereby authorize the AAA to administer the arbitration.” Because Pritchett, H & S Homes, and the assignee GreenPoint Credit agreed that the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA shall apply to their arbitration proceeding, we conclude that arbitration between these parties is due to be administered by the AAA.

The situation concerning Shaner, however, is factually different, as shown in the arbitration provision of the installment contract quoted earlier. Whereas Pritchett’s contract specifically stated that “[t]he Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association (‘AAA’) also shall apply,” Shaner’s installment contract contains no such provision. Although Shaner’s arbitration agreement does not mention anywhere the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA, Shaner’s demand for arbitration expressly stated that he was a party to an arbitration agreement “providing for arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules established by the American Arbitration Association,” and that he “hereby demands arbitration under such rules ” (emphasis supplied). Shaner’s demand was identical to the demand for arbitration made on Pritchett’s behalf, the same counsel making both demands. Nowhere was it argued that the phrasing of Shaner’s demand was mistaken in its assertion that his underlying arbitration agreement provided for arbitration under the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules.

Relying upon Rule 2 of the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, H & S Homes argues that because Shaner demanded arbitration pursuant to those rules, he authorized the AAA to administer the arbitration proceedings. We agree. Shaner agreed to arbitrate all disputes, claims, or controversies arising out of the sales transaction, agreed to the selection of an arbitrator by the assignee (Green Tree Financial Corporation) with Shaner’s consent, and made the selection (by his demand) to administer the arbitration process through the AAA. H & S Homes agreed to the method of arbitration administration selected and demanded by Shaner, and Shaner is bound thereby. Accordingly, we conclude that the arbitration proceedings between Shaner, H & S Homes, and the assignee Green Tree are due to be administered by the AAA.

We affirm that portion of the trial court’s judgment ordering that the arbitrators appointed by the respective assignees, Wilson and Allen, are to serve as arbitrators in these arbitration proceedings, each having been selected by a method prescribed in the respective stand-alone arbitration agreements. Neither the reference in Pritchett’s agreement to arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA nor the demand to proceed under those rules made by Shaner override the selection clauses of the stand-alone arbitration agreements. Although we affirm the trial court’s judgment ordering Wilson and Allen to serve as arbitrators, because we also conclude that the AAA shall administer these arbitration proceedings Wilson and Allen are nevertheless subject to the disclosure requirements of the AAA and the results that flow from those requirements. Insofar as the trial court’s judgment declares that the AAA shall not administer the arbitration proceedings of both Shaner and Pritchett, we reverse. We remand the case for an order consistent with this Court’s opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

NABERS, C.J., and SEE, HARWOOD, STUART, SMITH, and PARKER, JJ., concur.

LYONS and WOODALL, JJ., concur in the result.