author: SMITH, Chief Justice, GRAVES, Justice,

text:
    RIVER REGION MEDICAL CORPORATION d/b/a Parkview Regional Medical Center v. Thomas PATTERSON.
    No. 2005-CA-02357-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    Nov. 29, 2007.
    Jason Edward Dare, Greenville, L. Carl Hagwood, David Mark Eaton, Jackson, attorneys for appellant.

      Paul Kelly Loyacono, William Allen Hood, William A. Pyle, John Denver Fike, attorneys for appellee.
   SMITH, Chief Justice,

for the Court.

¶ 1. This case arises from a wrongful-death action brought in the Circuit Court of Warren County, Mississippi. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to River Region Medical Corporation (“River Region”) as to the claims of the deceased’s estate and Plaintiffs sought no other economic damages. The remaining claims at trial were the Plaintiffs’ individual claims of loss of society and companionship. The jury awarded compensation in the amount of $1,710,000 to the deceased’s husband, Thomas Patterson, and her two daughters, Hallie and Brandy Nettles, for these individual claims. The minor daughters subsequently settled their claims and no longer are involved in this case. It is undisputed that Thomas Patterson did not present any evidence regarding his claim for damages. We find that the trial court erred in denying River Region’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict as to Patterson’s claim. Accordingly, we reverse and render judgment in favor of River Region.

FACTS

¶ 2. Jennifer Nelson Nettles was admitted to River Region for the birth of her child, Brandy Nicole Nettles, who was born by cesarean section on December 26, 2001. Jennifer Nettles passed away later that day while still a patient at River Region. After her death, the decedent’s daughters, Hallie and Brandy Nettles, filed a wrongful death action against River Region. Thomas Patterson, decedent’s estranged husband, later joined the suit.

¶ 3. On September 15, 2005, the trial court granted Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the claims of the estate of Jennifer Nelson Nettles. The claims remaining to be tried were for loss of society and companionship. At the close of Plaintiffs’ case in chief, Defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the Plaintiffs had not met their burden of proof regarding loss of society and companionship. At that time, counsel for Plaintiffs stipulated that Plaintiffs were seeking no other damages. Defendant’s motion was denied and the case proceeded to the jury.

¶ 4. After a jury verdict for Plaintiffs, Defendant filed its “Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict, Motion for a New Trial or alternatively, Motion for Re-mittitur.” Again, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs had not proven loss of society and companionship. Again, Defendant’s motion was denied. Defendant appealed to this Court, alleging six errors by the trial court. The following year, Defendant settled with Hallie and Brandy Nettles.

DISCUSSION

¶ 5. River Region raised the following issues on appeal:

I. Whethér the Trial Court Committed Reversible Error by Allowing Eugene Michael Finan, M.D., to Express Opinions at Trial That Were Not Previously Disclosed.

II. Whether Terry Siverly Was Qualified to Testify as to Nursing Standards of Care.

III. Whether the Trial Court Committed Reversible Error by Admitting Photographs.

IV. Whether the Trial Court Committed Reversible Error by Excluding Evidence of Decedent’s Alleged Illegal Drug Use.

V. Whether the Trial Court Committed Reversible Error in Instructing the Jury That All Damages Must Be Equally Divided Between the Three Plaintiffs.

VI. Whether the Trial Court Erred in Denying Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict as to the Claims of Thomas Patterson.

¶ 6. Because we hold that River Region was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) as to Thomas Patterson’s claim, it is not necessary to address other assignments of error.

¶ 7. In reviewing denials of motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, this Court uses the same standard as for motions for directed verdict. Twin County Electric Power Ass’n v. McKenzie, 823 So.2d 464, 468 (Miss.2002).

“Under this standard, this Court will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inference that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. If the facts so considered point so overwhelmingly in favor of the appellant that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, we are required to reverse and render. On the other hand if there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, affirmance is required. The above standards of review, however, are predicated on the fact that the trial judge applied the correct law.”

Id. (citing Alpha Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Jackson, 801 So.2d 709, 720 (Miss.2001)).

¶ 8. River Region asserts that Patterson put on no evidence as to his individual claim. At trial, Plaintiffs put on six witnesses, who all testified regarding the Defendant’s liability. No witnesses testified to Plaintiffs’ claims for loss of society and companionship. Patterson argues that, as a statutory wrongful-death beneficiary, he is not required to prove individual damages. Patterson is correct in that his relationship to the decedent is all that is required for him to recover a share of the damages which the decedent could have recovered “if death had not ensued.” Such damages could include, among others, the decedent’s lost wages and pain and suffering. However, no such claims were presented at trial. And because at trial the jury considered only the individual claims of each Plaintiff, Patterson bore the burden of proving his own claim of loss of society and companionship. This he did not do.

¶ 9. The Wrongful Death Statute (the “Statute”) in Mississippi, codified at Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-7-13 (Rev.2004), mandates that there can be only one suit for the benefit of all parties and that the damages for the injury and death of a married woman are equally distributed between her husband and children. In Long v. McKinney, 897 So.2d 160 (Miss.2004), this Court addressed the beleaguered state of the law in wrongful-death actions. In Long, the Court aptly stated that “[n]o area of the law has historically provided more muddled, misquoted and misunderstood procedural rules, than civil claims for wrongful death.” Id. at 162-163. The parties were wrongful death beneficiaries who fought over who would control the litigation when more than one chose to appear and be represented by counsel. Id. at 162. In the present case, three plaintiffs were represented by one attorney in one action. The dispute between the parties is not procedural in nature but rather substantive, regarding the burden of proof which belonged to each plaintiff.

¶ 10: In Long, we stated “there are several kinds of damages which may be pursued, and these damages are not due to the same claimants.” Id. at 169. (Emphasis added). “For instance, the estate is entitled to recover funeral costs and final medical expenses. The beneficiaries are entitled to recover for their respective claims of loss of society and companionship. The wrongful-death beneficiaries are entitled to recover the present net cash value of the decedent’s continued existence.” Id. (Emphasis added). Assuming Thomas Patterson was a legitimate wrongful-death beneficiary, as we must do in giving him all reasonable inferences, he would then be entitled to recover for himself any loss of society and companionship he might prove, and to share equally in the damages which might have been recovered by Ms. Nettles, “had death not ensued.” Miss.Code Ann. § 11 —7—13 (Rev.2004).

¶ 11. After Ms. Nettles’s unfortunate demise, it is true that under the statute, her husband and children would be entitled to damages should they prevail in their wrongful-death action. It is also true, therefore, that certain damages would have to be shared equally among them. However, here the jury awarded damages solely for loss of society and companionship. These damages are separate from and possibly in addition to any damages they would share equally — i.e., the damages of the estate and those suffered by Ms. Nettles.

¶ 12. In Long, the decedent’s daughter was the sole beneficiary of his will. Her brothers were disinherited. Id. at 170. We noted that “a potential and incentive for Lori to vigorously pursue the claims of the estate, and her individual claim for loss of society, is clearly present. Each dollar recovered for such claims will inure entirely to the benefit of Lori, while other dollars recovered must be divided among the wrongful death beneficiaries.” Id. (Emphasis added). Here, by entering into the litigation and bringing an individual claim for loss of society and companionship and nothing further, Patterson was then charged with proving this claim. As River Region has correctly stated, “[u]n-der Mississippi law, plaintiffs bear the burden of going forward with sufficient evidence to prove their damages by a preponderance of the evidence.” TXG Intrastate Pipeline Co. v. Grossnickle, 716 So.2d 991, 1016 (Miss.1997). In a wrongful-death action where the decedent was electrocuted while renovating a sewage lift station in Anguilla, Mississippi, his widow and his four children brought suit. Entergy Miss., Inc. v. Hayes, 874 So.2d 952, 953 (Miss.2004). In that case, we noted “The plaintiffs presented extensive testimonial evidence of the relationship each had with [decedent] and their suffering as a result of his death in support of their damages claim for loss of love, society, and companionship.” Id. at 954. Here, Patterson presented no evidence regarding any damages sustained from loss of society and companionship. Claims of the estate or other wrongful-death economic damages were not at issue. Therefore, River Region was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to Patterson’s claim.

CONCLUSION

¶ 13. Plaintiff Thomas Patterson did not prove any damages for loss of society and companionship. As the jury considered no other claims on his behalf, nor were any claims remaining for the wrongful-death beneficiaries in their entirety, we find that River Region’s Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict should have been granted.

¶ 14. REVERSED AND RENDERED.

WALLER, P.J., CARLSON, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. GRAVES, J„ DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY DIAZ, P.J.

GRAVES, Justice,

Dissenting.

¶ 15. I disagree with the majority’s holding that River Region was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Because I would affirm the jury verdict, I respectfully dissent.

¶ 16. River Region did not raise an issue on appeal regarding the denial of the motion for JNOV, and “this Court has long held that issues not raised on appeal are procedurally barred from consideration.” Glover v. Jackson State Univ., 755 So.2d 395, 398 (Miss.2000). Therefore, the issue of whether River Region was entitled to JNOV is procedurally barred and not properly before this Court.

¶ 17. The issue raised by River Region on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict. While the standards of review for denial of directed verdict and denial of JNOV are the same, the motions are separate and distinct. Further, River Region’s argument on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the motion for directed verdict is without merit. River Region argued that a directed verdict was appropriate, in part, because the plaintiffs had failed to introduce any evidence as to life expectancy as required by Gatlin v. Methodist Medical Center, Inc., 772 So.2d 1023 (Miss.2000). Thereafter, the trial court denied the motion for directed verdict, but allowed the plaintiffs to reopen their case-in-chief pursuant to Gatlin to introduce evidence as to life expectancy. In Gatlin, this Court found that the trial court should have allowed the plaintiff to reopen her case to present evidence as to life expectancy. Thus, the trial court did not err.

¶ 18. River Region later renewed the motion, arguing in part that the plaintiffs’ claim “should be limited to the date of death and time of trial.” The trial court properly denied the renewed motion, as Patterson had introduced evidence of life expectancy for all of the parties.

¶ 19. The majority also finds that damages for loss of society and companionship are not to be equally distributed pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-7-13. However, the majority’s finding is contradicted by the statutory language. Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-7-13 states, in relevant part:

Except as otherwise provided in Section 11-1-69, in such action the party or parties suing shall recover such damages allowable by law as the jury may determine to be just, taking into consideration all the damages of every kind to the decedent and all damages of every kind to any and all parties interested in the suit.

Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-13 (Rev.2004).

¶ 20. This Court consistently has found that this language in section 11-7-13 includes damages for the loss of society and companionship. Specifically, this Court has said:

This statutory language has been held to include (1) the present net cash value of the life expectancy of the deceased, (2) the loss of the companionship and society of the decedent, (3) the pain and suffering of the decedent between the time of injury and death, and (4) punitive damages. Jesco, Inc. v. Whitehead, 451 So.2d 706, 710 (Miss.1984); Sheffield v. Sheffield, 405 So.2d 1314, 1318 (Miss.1981); Dickey v. Parham, 331 So.2d 917, 918-919 (Miss.1976); Thornton v. Ins. Co. of North America, 287 So.2d 262, 265 (Miss.1973); Scott v. K-B Photo Service, Inc., 260 So.2d 842, 844 (Miss.1972); Boyd Constr. Co. v. Bilbro, 210 So.2d 637, 643 (Miss.1968).

McGowan v. Wright, 524 So.2d 308, 311 (Miss.1988).

¶ 21. Section 11-7-13 further states, in relevant part:

Any amount, but only such an amount, as may be recovered for property damage, funeral, medical or other related expenses shall be subject only to the payment of the debts or liabilities of the deceased for property damages, funeral, medical or other related expenses. All other damages recovered under the provisions of this section shall not be subject to the payment of the debts or liabilities of the deceased, except as hereinafter provided, and such damages shall be distributed as follows:
Damages for the injury and death of a married man shall be equally distributed to his wife and children, and if he has no children all shall go to his wife; damages for the injury and death of a married woman shall be equally distributed to the husband and children, and if she has no children all shall go to the husband....

Miss.Code Ann. § 11-7-13 (Rev.2004) (emphasis added).

¶ 22. Clearly, section 11-7-13 includes damages for the loss of society and companionship. Further, such damages are not for property damage, funeral, medical or other related expenses. Therefore, such damages must fall into the category of “all other damages” which “shall be equally distributed.” Moreover, this Court has upheld the equal distribution of such damages. See Pannell v. Guess, 671 So.2d 1310 (Miss.1996).

¶23. Section 11-7-13 does not contain any language as used by the majority that “beneficiaries are entitled to recover for their respective claims of loss of society and companionship.” An equal distribution of such damages may seem unfair. However, if this Court respects its recent trend, then it must strictly construe the statute. See Caves v. Yarbrough, — So.2d —, —, 2007 WL 3197504, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 613, ⅜14 (Miss.2007). See also Gannett River States Publ. Co. v. Entergy Miss., Inc., 940 So.2d 221, 224-26 (Miss.2006); Arceo v. Tolliver, 949 So.2d 691, 694 (Miss.2006); Pitalo v. GPCH-GP, Inc., 933 So.2d 927, 929 (Miss.2006); Walker v. Whitfield Nursing Ctr., Inc., 931 So.2d 583, 590-91 (Miss.2006); and Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. v. Easterling, 928 So.2d 815, 820 (Miss.2006). A strict construction of the statute would lead one to conclude that there would be no need for Patterson to prove individual damages for loss of society and companionship.

¶ 24. Accordingly, I would find that the issue of whether the trial court properly denied the motion for JNOV is procedurally barred from consideration. I would also find that the trial court properly denied the motion for directed verdict. Because I would affirm the verdict of the jury, I respectfully dissent.

DIAZ, P.J., JOINS THIS OPINION.

      . Additionally, in arguing that it was entitled to JNOV, River Region asserted that it was denied the opportunity to "disprove” that there was loss of society and companionship. This presumes that these damages had indeed been proven.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: CARLSON, Justice,

license: Public Domain

text:
    MISSISSIPPI CARE CENTER OF GREENVILLE, LLC, Oxford Management Company, Inc., Michael Overstreet and Tessa Cooper v. Nancy HINYUB, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Don Wyse.
    No. 2005-CA-01239-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    Jan. 3, 2008.
    Rehearing Denied March 6, 2008.

      Heather Marie Aby, Marjorie Selby Busching, Jackson, Steven Mark Wann, attorneys for appellants.
    F.M. Turner, III, Hattiesburg, attorney for appellee.

      Before SMITH, C.J., CARLSON and RANDOLPH, JJ.
   CARLSON, Justice,

for the Court.

¶ 1. In this wrongful-death suit, Mississippi Care Center of Greenville, LLC; Oxford Management Company, Inc.; Michael Overstreet; and Tessa Cooper appeal to this Court after the trial court refused to compel arbitration. Finding no error, we affirm the Washington County Circuit Court’s order denying the defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT

¶ 2. In January of 1997, Don Wyse was admitted to Mississippi Care Center of Greenville Pk/a MS Extended Care of Greenville (MCCG) under an admission agreement which did not contain an arbitration provision. This admission agreement was signed by Don Wyse and Wyse’s daughter, Nancy Wyse (Hinyub), who asserted that she was signing on behalf of her father pursuant to a durable power of attorney. On January 31, 2004, Don Wyse was discharged from MCCG and was transferred to Delta Regional Medical Center for treatment. On February 13, 2004, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Wyse was re-admitted to MCCG, and Hinyub, on behalf of her father, entered into a second admission agreement with MCCG. This second admission agreement contained an arbitration provision. Wyse died at noon the next day.

¶ 3. On August 24, 2004, Nancy Hi-nyub, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Don Wyse, deceased, filed an action in the Circuit Court of Washington County against MCCG; Oxford Management Company, Inc.; Health Care Consultants, Inc.; Mississippi Extended Care of Greenville, Inc.; Michael H. Overstreet; Tessi Cooper; Unidentified Entities 1 through 10 and John Does 1 through 10 (as to MCCG) alleging, inter alia, negligence, malpractice, malice and/or gross negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and wrongful death. On August 30, 2004, Hinyub filed an amended complaint to substitute John Does 1-2 with Nino A. Bologna, M.D. and Phillip Doolittle, M.D., two of Wyse’s treating physicians. On December 16, 2004, MCCG, Overstreet and Cooper filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration based on the arbitration provision contained within the Admissions Agreement of February 13, 2004. On December 22, 2004, Oxford Management Company, Inc., filed its Motion for Joinder in the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration. Hinyub filed her opposition to the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on April 21, 2005. After reviewing the motions submitted by the parties, on June 3, 2005, the Circuit Court of Washington County, Judge Richard A. Smith, presiding, entered its Order Denying the Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration. From this order, certain defendants appeal to this Court on the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in failing to enforce an arbitration provision contained within a nursing home admission agreement entered into between the nursing home and the resident’s daughter (Nancy Hinyub), operating under a power of attorney and as her father’s responsible party. Finding that the trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION.

¶ 4. On appeal, we apply a de novo standard of review to a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to compel arbitration. EquiFirst Corp. v. Jackson, 920 So.2d 458, 461 (Miss.2006); Doleac v. Real Estate Professionals, LLC, 911 So.2d 496, 501 (Miss.2005); East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor, 826 So.2d 709, 713 (Miss.2002). The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., applies to all written agreements to arbitrate contained in any contract “evidencing a transaction involving commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 2.

¶ 5. Courts have long recognized the existence of “a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements.” EquiFirst Corp., 920 So.2d at 461 (citing Terminix Int’l, Inc., Ltd. P’ship v. Rice, 904 So.2d 1051, 1054-55 (Miss.2004) (quoting Russell v. Performance Toyota, Inc., 826 So.2d 719, 722 (Miss.2002))). As such, “[arbitration is firmly embedded in both our federal and state laws.” EquiFirst Corp., 920 So.2d at 461 (citing Pass Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Walker, 904 So.2d 1030, 1032-33 (Miss.2004) (citing Russell, 826 So.2d 719 (Miss.2002); East Ford, 826 So.2d 709 (Miss.2002); IP Timberlands Operating Co. v. Denmiss Corp., 726 So.2d 96 (Miss.1998))).

¶ 6. Therefore, arbitration is required “unless the agreement to arbitrate is not part of a contract evidencing interstate commerce or is revocable ‘upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.’ ” McKenzie Check Advance of Miss. v. Hardy, 866 So.2d 446, 450 (Miss.2004); 9 U.S.C. § 2. That being said, “[ajrbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” Equi-First Corp., 920 So.2d at 461 (citing Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Battle, 873 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss.2004) (quoting AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 648 106 S.Ct. 1415, 1418, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986))).

¶ 7. The defendants argue on appeal that they should be allowed to arbitrate the claims asserted by Nancy Hinyub, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Don Wyse. In support of their argument, the defendants contend Hinyub had authority to bind her father, Don Wyse, in health care matters, including the agreement to arbitrate. The defendants thus assert that, based on Hinyub’s authority to bind her father to the arbitration provision, Hinyub gave the mutual assent of her father and herself to the arbitration provision when she signed directly below the arbitration provision, which provided in relevant part:

The parties understand and agree that by entering this Arbitration Agreement they are giving up and waiving their constitutional right to have any claim decided in a court of law before a judge and jury.
The Resident and/or Responsible Party understand that (1) he/she has the right to seek legal counsel concerning this agreement, (2) the execution of this Arbitration (sic) is not a precondition to the furnishing of services to the Resident by the Facility; and (3) this Arbitration Agreement may be rescinded by written notice to the Facility from the Resident within 30 days of signature. If not rescinded within 30 days, this Arbitration Agreement shall remain in effect for all care and services subsequently rendered at the Facility, even if such care and services are rendered following the Resident’s discharge and readmission to the Facility.

¶ 8. Hinyub argues on the other hand that no arbitration agreement existed between Don Wyse and MCCG because the claims asserted in the complaint are not covered by the arbitration agreement; Hi-nyub did not have authority to bind her father to an arbitration agreement, either pursuant to a durable power of attorney for health care or as a health care surrogate under the Uniform Health-Care Surrogate Statute, Miss.Code Ann. § 41-41-211 (Rev.2005); and the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable.

¶ 9. This Court unquestionably has recognized the well-accepted standard for determining the validity and enforceability of an arbitration clause. Specifically,

In determining the validity of a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts generally conduct a two-pronged inquiry. The first prong has two considerations: (1) whether there is a valid arbitration agreement and (2) whether the parties’ dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Under the second prong, the United States Supreme Court has stated the question is “whether legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement foreclosed arbitration of those claims.”

Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Battle, 873 So.2d 79, 82-83 (Miss.2004) (citing East Ford, Inc., 826 So.2d at 713). See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler-Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985). Based on the above standard, MCCG states “[i]n this case sub judice, a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists between Don Wyse and Mississippi Care Center of Greenville.” However, nowhere in the motion did MCCG assert that a valid arbitration agreement existed because Hinyub had a durable power of attorney or any authority to act on behalf of Wyse to sign the admission agreement.

¶ 10. Thus, this Court must first determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute. Rogers-Dabbs Chevrolet-Hummer v. Blakeney, 950 So.2d 170, 173 (Miss.2007). To determine whether the parties in this case agreed to arbitrate the dispute, we consider the already-noted, two-prong test of whether there is a valid arbitration agreement, and whether the parties’ dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Id. (citing East Ford, 826 So.2d at 713). In determining whether Wyse and Hinyub agreed to arbitration, we simply apply contract law. See Terminix Int’l, Inc., Ltd. P’ship v. Rice, 904 So.2d 1051, 1055 (Miss.2004); see also First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 1924, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995). That being said, it is important to note that, while Wyse did not himself sign the arbitration agreement, Hinyub’s signature may have bound Wyse if Hinyub had the authority to sign the document.

¶ 11. In Washington Mutual Finance Group, LLC v. Bailey, 364 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir.2004), a plaintiff insisted she could not be bound by the arbitration provision contained within a contract signed solely by her husband. However, the court found that she was bound by the arbitration provision and stated:

It does not follow ... that under the [Federal Arbitration] Act an obligation to arbitrate attaches only to one who has personally signed the written arbitration provision. [We have made] clear that a nonsignatory party may be bound to an arbitration agreement if so dictated by the ordinary principles of contract and agency.

(quoting Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2nd Cir.1995)). See also Terminix, 904 So.2d at 1058 (wife bound by arbitration clause in contract signed by her husband, although she did not sign the contract). So this Court must determine whether Hinyub had authority to sign the nursing home’s admission agreement and arbitration agreement on behalf of Wyse.

¶ 12. MCCG argues that Wyse executed a power of attorney in favor of Hinyub on June 1, 1996, and that this power of attorney empowered Hinyub with full authority to act on his behalf with regard to health-care decisions. “Generally speaking, our law regards as valid and enforceable as a power of attorney any written instrument signed by the principal and ‘expressing plainly the authority conferred.’ ” Kountouris v. Varvaris, 476 So.2d 599, 603 (Miss.1985) (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 87-3-7 (Rev.1999)). However, the durable power of attorney to which the parties refer is not a part of the official record before this Court. The defendants concede this fact in their brief when they state that “[s]aid power of attorney was submitted to the [trial court] as part of the April 26, 2005 hearing. However it does not appear in the record.” It was not until the end of the hearing that the parties and the trial court focused on the power of attorney. The transcript of the April 26, 2005, hearing (in which the official court reporter certified that no exhibits were offered and received into evidence) reveals the following:

BY [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: One thing that was not brought out, and may I approach, Your Honor?
BY THE COURT: Yes.
BY [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: In order to clear up whether or not she can bind—
BY [PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY]: What are you looking at?
BY [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: The power of attorney. Do you have a copy?
BY [PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY]: I haven’t seen it.
BY [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: Ms. Hinyub executed a power of attorney for healthcare the year before her dad went into the facility, and I know I’ve got another one.
BY [PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY]: That’s okay. You can give him [the trial judge] this one. I’ve read it.
BY [DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY]: In their brief, they repeatedly pointed out unless there was a power of attorney, she has no authority as an agent to bind Mr. Wyse, or any of the estate, or wrongful death beneficiaries, where clearly she had the authority since 1996 to do so, and, in fact, she did admit him as his agent for power of attorney for healthcare decisions.

¶ 13. This power of attorney was not offered into evidence as an exhibit, nor was it designated as part of the record for this appeal. Instead, there are only references to its existence in the briefs, and Hinyub attached an unauthenticated copy of the durable power of attorney in her brief. “This Court is limited to consideration of the facts in the record, while reliance on facts only disclosed in the briefs is prohibited.” Greater Canton Ford Mercury, Inc. v. Ables, 948 So.2d 417, 423 (Miss.2007) (citing Atlantic Horse Ins. Co. v. Nero, 108 Miss. 321, 329, 66 So. 780 (1914)). Without a durable power of attorney contained within the record, this Court is constrained as a matter of law to find that Nancy Hinyub did not have authority to bind her father, Don Wyse, according to such power of attorney, by causing the claims to be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement within the second admissions agreement executed by Hinyub within hours of her father’s death.

¶ 14. We now look at MCCG’s second assertion that Hinyub had authority to bind Wyse as Wyse’s health care surrogate under the Uniform Health Care Surrogate Statute, Miss.Code Ann. § 41-41-211 (Rev.2005). This statute states in pertinent part:

(1) A surrogate may make a health-care decision for a patient who is an adult or emancipated minor if the patient has been determined by the primary physician to lack capacity and no agent or guardian has been appointed or the agent or guardian is not reasonably available.
(2) An adult or emancipated minor may designate any individual to act as surrogate by personally informing the supervising health-care provider. In absence of a designation, or if the designee is not reasonably available, any member of the following classes of the patient’s family who is reasonably available, in descending order of priority, may act as surrogate:
(a) The spouse, unless legally separated;
(b) An adult child;
(c) A parent; or
(d) An adult brother or sister.
(6) A surrogate shall make a health-care decision in accordance with the patient’s individual instructions, if any, and other wishes to the extent known to the surrogate. Otherwise, the surrogate shall make the decision in accordance with the surrogate’s determination of the patient’s best interest. In determining the patient’s best interest, the surrogate shall consider the patient’s personal values to the extent known to the surrogate.

¶ 15. Again, the record is devoid of information to properly determine if Hi-nyub could act as Wyse’s health care surrogate. According to the statute, Wyse’s primary physician would first have to determine that Don Wyse lacked capacity to make his own health care decisions. “Capacity” is defined in Miss.Code Ann. § 41-41-203(d) as “an individual’s ability to understand the significant benefits, risks, and alternatives to proposed health care and to make and communicate a health care decision.” No such evidence is contained in the record before us. Neither party presents a declaration by Wyse’s primary physician stating that Wyse was incapable of managing his affairs prior to Hinyub’s signing the admissions agreement with the arbitration agreement.

¶ 16. Additionally, under the Act, the authority of a health-care surrogate is limited to making “health-care decisions.” According to Miss.Code Ann. § 41-41-203(h):

“Health care decision” means a decision made by an individual or the individual’s agent, guardian, or surrogate, regarding the individual’s health care, including:
(i) Selection and discharge of healthcare providers and institutions;
(ii) Approval or disapproval of diagnostic tests, surgical procedures, programs of medication, and orders not to resuscitate; and
(iii) Directions to provide, withhold or withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration and all other forms of health care.

Miss.Code Ann. § 41-41-211 (Rev.2005).

While in both Covenant Health Rehab of Picayune v. Brown, 949 So.2d 732 (Miss.2007) and Vicksburg Partners, L.P. v. Stephens, 911 So.2d 507 (Miss.2005), this Court found that execution of the arbitration provision as part of the admissions agreement was part of the “health-care decision,” the arbitration provision was an essential part of the consideration for the receipt of “health care” in those instances. On the other hand, in today’s case, Hinyub was not required to sign the arbitration provision to admit Don Wyse to the Mississippi Care Center of Greenville. In fact, the admissions agreement clearly stated:

The Resident and/or Responsible Party understand^] that (1) he/she has the right to seek legal counsel concerning this agreement, (2) the execution of this Arbitration is not a precondition to the furnishing of services to the Resident by the Facility; and (3) this Arbitration Agreement may be rescinded by written notice to the Facility from the Resident within 30 days of signature. If not rescinded within 30 days, this Arbitration Agreement shall remain in effect for all care and services subsequently rendered at the Facility, even if such care and services are rendered following the Resident’s discharge and readmission to the Facility.

II17. Since signing the arbitration provision was not a part of the consideration necessary for Wyse’s admission to MCCG and not necessarily in the best interest of Wyse as required by the Act, Hinyub did not have the authority as Wyse’s health care surrogate to enter into the arbitration provision contained within the admissions agreement.

¶ 18. Because Hinyub lacked authority to enter into the arbitration provision within the admission agreement, the arbitration agreement is invalid. Therefore, Hinyub is not required to arbitrate her claims against MCCG. The first prong of the two-prong test outlined in East Ford has not been met. 826 So.2d at 713. Thus, it is unnecessary for this Court to address the remaining issues raised on appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶ 19. For the reasons stated, the Washington County Circuit Court’s order denying the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is affirmed and this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Washington County for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 20. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR. DIAZ, P.J., AND GRAVES, J., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY.

      . Nancy Wyse has since married and her legal name is now Nancy Hinyub.

      . The official record before this Court is devoid of a durable power of attorney executed by Don Wyse in favor of Nancy Hinyub. This fact will be discussed in more detail, infra.

      . There is no Rule 54(b) certification from the trial judge in this case. See Miss. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In the original Complaint, there were seven named defendants as well as Unidentified Entities 1 through 10 and John Does 1 through 10. In the later filed Amended Complaint, Dr. Nino A. Bologna and Dr. Phillip Doolittle were added as named defendants. The defendants who filed the motion to compel arbitration were MCCG, Michael H. Over-street, and Tessi Cooper; however, by separate motion, Oxford Management Company, Inc., joined this motion to compel arbitration. Separate motions to dismiss were filed by Dr. Bologna and Dr. Doolittle; however, the record reveals that the trial court ruled only on Dr. Bologna's motion to dismiss by way of an order denying the motion to dismiss. Thus, the defendants who are not parties to this appeal are Health Care Consultants, Inc., Health Services of Mississippi, Inc., Mississippi Extended Care of Greenville, Inc., Dr. Nino A. Bologna, and Dr. Phillip Doolittle. Since the sole issue on appeal is whether certain defendants are entitled to the enforcement of an arbitration provision, and since today’s appeal is being resolved by way of a remand to the trial court for a final disposition on the merits as to all defendants, the lack of a Rule 54(b) certification is of no moment.

      . It is interesting to note that it was the plaintiff-appellee, Nancy Hinyub, who attached an unauthenticated copy in her brief, and not the defendants-appellants, who would have been the ones who would want us to look at the power of attorney.


text:
    Olan CALLINS v. STATE of Mississippi.
    No. 2005-CT-00071-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    Feb. 21, 2008.

      Olan Callins, pro se.
    Office of the Attorney General by Charles W. Maris, Jr., attorney for appel-lee.
   CARLSON, Justice,

for the Court.

¶ 1. Olan Callins appealed the Alcorn County Circuit Court’s judgment denying relief under the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court judgment and remanded this ease to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Callins detrimentally relied on the plea agreement, thus invalidating the penitentiary sentence imposed upon him. Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 243, 2007 WL 1121359, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243 (Apr. 17, 2007), r’hg denied, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 619 (Sept. 18, 2007). However, we granted the State’s petition for writ of certiorari. Callins v. State, 968 So.2d 948 (2007). Having now considered the critical issue raised on appeal, we find that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed, and the judgment of the Alcorn County Circuit Court should be reinstated and affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT

¶ 2. On July 26, 2004, Olan Callins, with his court-appointed counsel, appeared before the Circuit Court of Alcorn County, Judge Sharion R. Aycock, presiding, and offered a plea of guilty to a grand jury indictment charging him with possession of a quantity of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance being more than ten grams but less than thirty grams, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 41-29-139(c)(1)(D) (Rev.2005). Judge Aycock conducted an exhaustive examination of Callins in the presence of his attorney and the assistant district attorney concerning the voluntariness of Callins’s guilty plea. At Judge Aycock’s request, the assistant district attorney announced on the record the plea agreement reached between the State and the defendant (which provided, inter alia, for forfeiture of certain items by'Callins and a joint sentence recommendation of ten years’ imprisonment, but credit for time served in custody and suspension of the balance of the sentence). Judge Aycock informed Callins that if she accepted his guilty plea, sentencing would be deferred and another judge would impose the sentence. At the conclusion of the plea colloquy, Judge Ay-cock determined that Callins’s guilty plea was freely and voluntarily offered, and she thus accepted Callins’s plea of guilty and set the case for subsequent sentencing by a different judge.

¶ 3. On August 5, 2004, Callins appeared with counsel before the Circuit Court of Alcorn County, Judge Paul S. Funderburk presiding. Notwithstanding the joint sentence recommendation which, if accepted, would have allowed Callins to serve his sentence free from incarceration, Judge Funderburk sentenced Callins to serve a term of twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with twelve years suspended and eight years to serve, followed by five years of post-release supervision. Feeling aggrieved by Judge Funderburk’s failure to sentence him consistent with the joint sentence recommendation, Callins, through counsel, filed a Motion to Clarify Sentencing Order, Conduct Due Process Hearing, or in the Alternative, to Grant Relief Under Post Conviction Relief Act. Judge Funderburk, without conducting an evi-dentiary hearing, subsequently entered an order denying Callins’s motion, from which Callins appealed. This case was assigned to the Court of Appeals.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

¶ 4. On appeal, Callins raised issues concerning whether the trial judge erred in (1) refusing to sentence Callins consistent with the joint sentence recommendation; (2) imposing a sentence which exceeded the maximum penalty provided by statute; and (3) refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing on Callins’s post-conviction grievances. The Court of Appeals appropriately restated the issues to be (1) whether Callins’s guilty plea was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered; (2) whether the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing sentence; and (3) whether Callins was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion for post-conviction relief. While there appeared to be no disagreement among the members of the Court of Appeals on the first two issues, the majority’s treatment of Issue III generated a dissent from Judge Carlton, and her dissent was joined by Presiding Judge Myers. We agree with the Court of Appeals in its treatment and disposition of the first two issues; therefore, having granted certiora-ri, we limit the question on today’s review. Miss. R.App. P. 17(h).

¶ 5. In a seven-two opinion (one judge not participating), the Court of Appeals found that while Callins’s guilty plea was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered and that Judge Funderburk did not abuse his discretion in imposing sentence, Callins was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether he detrimentally relied on the joint plea agreement between himself and the State of Mississippi. The Court of Appeals found that, even though Callins’s motion for post-conviction relief did not substantially comply with Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-9 (Rev.2007), sufficient evidence existed in the record to warrant affording Callins an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 247, at **9-10, ¶ 10. Specifically, relying on this Court’s decisions in Moody v. State, 716 So.2d 592 (Miss.1998), and Boyington v. State, 389 So.2d 485 (Miss.1980), the Court of Appeals held that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether Callins in fact satisfied his obligation to forfeit the property pursuant to the plea agreement. Id. at 247-48, at **10-11, ¶ 11. The Court of Appeals reasoned that if Callins forfeited his property, then he had relied upon the plea agreement to his disadvantage, since he had been led to believe that the sentencing recommendation would be accepted. Id. at 247-48, at **10-13, ¶¶ 11-13. Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court had knowledge of the plea agreement and allowed a continuance in order to give Callins additional time to complete the forfeiture, thus participating in the plea agreement. Id. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court judgment denying post-conviction relief, and remanded the case to the trial court, stating that “if the trial court determines that Callins has substantially complied with his obligations under the plea agreement to his detriment, then, pursuant to Moody and Boyington, the trial court is duty bound to sentence him consistent with his plea bargain.” Id.

¶ 6. However, in her dissent, Judge Carlton found that Callins was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, stating, inter alia:

I disagree with the majority’s determination that Callins is entitled to an evi-dentiary hearing on the issue of whether he detrimentally relied upon the plea agreement by virtue of his cooperation with the forfeiture proceedings. A trial judge is not bound to accept the sentencing recommendation of the State where he does not involve himself in the plea bargaining process. Moreover, Callins’s claim was properly dismissed without a hearing as it was unsupported by the affidavits of others and directly contradicted by his sworn testimony at the plea hearing.

Callins, 975 So.2d at 251, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243, *21, ¶ 22 (Carlton, J., dissenting).

¶ 7. After its motion for rehearing was denied by the Court of Appeals, the State of Mississippi filed with the Court a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted. We thus focus our discussion on the crucial issue presented on writ of certiora-ri.

DISCUSSION

WHETHER CALLINS WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON HIS MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.

¶ 8. “When reviewing a lower court’s decision to deny a petition for post conviction relief this Court will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. However, where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de novo.” Lambert v. State, 941 So.2d 804, 807 (Miss.2006) (quoting Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595, 598 (Miss.1999); see also Bank of Miss. v. S. Mem’l Park, Inc., 677 So.2d 186, 191 (Miss.1996)).

¶ 9. Returning to the relevant facts of today’s case concerning the proceedings before the trial court, a careful review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing reveals that on July 26, 2004, Judge Ay-cock conducted an extensive examination of Callins to satisfy herself that Callins understood his constitutional rights, as well as those constitutional rights he was giving up with his guilty plea. In each instance, Callins stated that he understood his rights and that he was giving up his rights by pleading guilty. In open court, Callins was informed of the minimum and maximum penalties for the methamphetamine possession charge to which he was pleading guilty, that being a minimum sentence of six years imprisonment, a maximum sentence of twenty-four years imprisonment, and a maximum fíne of $500,000. Judge Aycock then inquired:

Q. Mr. Callins, do you understand and represent to the Court that you understand the minimum mandatory sentence as well as the maximum sentence and fine that this Court could impose?
A. Yes.

Judge Aycock then learned that Callins had engaged in a plea agreement with the State:

THE COURT: Does the State have a recommendation in his case?
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: We do, Your Honor. We are requesting that sentencing be deferred. As part of the plea agreement, there are certain items which are being forfeited, and there are individuals not in court today who have expressed an interest in the items seized; and, therefore, it is necessary to get their signature on the forfeiture items. But the recommendation will be, Your Honor, the defendant be sentenced to ten years with the Mississippi Department of Corrections, that he be given credit for the time he has already served with the balance suspended and placed on three years post-release supervision, forfeit those items seized, and it is a sum of cash and a vehicle, Your Honor, seized on the day of arrest. $100 to the Mississippi Crime Lab, $100 to the Mississippi Crime Victims Compensation Fund and court costs. We do not request a fíne, Your Honor, due to the value of the items seized.

Judge Aycock again questioned Callins:

Q. Do you understand that even though the State is making a recommendation that this Court is not bound to accept the State’s recommendation and could impose the maximum sentence of 24 years, the maximum fine of a half million dollars and/or both?
A. Yes.
Q. You have heard it announced that sentencing is going to be deferred; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Callins, do you understand that that was going to require you to report back here next week for sentencing?
A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Callins, you’re going to be back before the Court next week as announced as a condition to your plea here today. I’m asking you do you understand that another judge will be here next week?
A. Yes, sir (sic).
Q. Do you agree that another judge other than myself-I’ve accepted your plea. Do you agree that another judge will do the sentencing next week?
A. Yes.

¶ 10. On August 5, 2004, the Alcorn County Circuit Court, Judge Paul Fun-derburk, presiding, conducted Callins’s sentencing hearing. Judge Funderburk rejected the State’s recommendation, stating:

THE COURT: I note in the court file that he signed an affidavit of indigence on September 18, 2003, stating that he was unemployed, earned zero dollars per week, that he didn’t own an automobile, he didn’t own any property, that he had zero dollars in checking, zero dollars in savings. His assets were zero. And based on that affidavit, which apparently was perjured, he was appointed counsel, a public defender. I have also reviewed the presentence investigation on Mr. Callins, which shows that he has six prior felony convictions.[]
Taking his previous record into consideration and the nature of the charge, the minimum and maximum penalties, it is the sentence of the Court, Mr. Callins, that you serve a term of 20 years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Twelve of those years shall be suspended, leaving you eight to serve. You are ordered to pay a two thousand dollar fine and all cost of court. Upon your release you will be on five years post-release supervision. You will be in custody of the sheriff to await transportation.

¶ 11. Consistent with the sentence imposed upon Callins in open court, Judge Funderburk entered an order sentencing Callins to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with twelve years suspended, and five years of post-release supervision. Additionally, Callins was ordered to pay $281 in court costs and a $2,000 fine. On August 10, 2004, Callins, filed, pro se, a Motion to Withdrawal (sic) Guilty Plea pursuant to Mississippi Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court Practice 8.04(A).

¶ 12. On October 6, 2004, Callins, through counsel, filed a Motion to Clarify Sentencing Order, Conduct Due Process Hearing, or in the Alternative, to Grant Relief Under Post Conviction Relief Act, wherein Callins stated that he, his counsel, and the Assistant District Attorney all believed that the sentence recommendation would be followed by the sentencing judge. However, Callins attached no affidavits to his motion. Callins requested that the trial court give him a full hearing concerning his sentence and clarify its order concerning that sentence. On September 30, 2005, Judge Funderburk entered an order entitled “Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Clarify Sentencing Order, Conduct Due Process Hearing, or in the Alternative, To Grant Relief Under Post Conviction Relief Act.”

¶ 13. In his detailed, three-page order, Judge Funderburk, without a hearing, found from the record (including the transcript of the guilty plea hearing before Judge Aycock), that his sentencing order was unambiguous and required no clarification. Judge Funderburk likewise found, inter alia, that Callins acknowledged the minimum and maximum penalties for the crime to which he pleaded guilty; that Callins acknowledged that he understood the sentencing judge was not bound by the sentencing recommendation which had been read in open court before Judge Ay-cock; and that Callins had one year of college and certainly understood his rights and those rights he was giving up by his guilty plea. Judge Funderburk also stated that a pre-sentence investigation report prepared by an officer "with the Mississippi Department of Corrections showed that Callins had six prior felony convictions, although Callins had sworn under oath during his plea colloquy with Judge Ay-cock that he had only one prior felony conviction. Judge Funderburk further stated in his order that Callins made yet another perjured statement when he acknowledged before him at the time of sentencing that he had been “gainfully employed in the used car business,” and when he acknowledged before Judge Aycock that he had been employed at Millennium Cars, Inc., for seven years. On the other hand, in order to secure a public defender at the time of arraignment, Callins signed a sworn affidavit of indigence stating that he was unemployed with no income and had no real or personal property. Finally, in his order denying post-conviction relief, Judge Funderburk stated:

In arriving at a sentence, the Court took into consideration the nature of the charge against Callins, the minimum and maximum sentences provided by statute for the crime to which he pled guilty and his previous felony history. The trial judge is “solely responsible for determining the appropriate sentence. The trial judge does not have to accept any sentence recommendation made during plea negotiations.” Robinson v. State, 836 So.2d 747, 751 (Miss.200[2]).
Allegations by a movant in post-conviction pleadings that are completely contradicted by his sworn testimony in the record, as in this case, do not require a hearing. Dawkins v. State, 919 So.2d 92 (Miss.Ct.App.2005), citing Taylor v. State, 682 So.2d 359, 364 (Miss.1996). Therefore, Callins’ motion shall be, and the same is hereby, denied and dismissed for this reason.
Furthermore, Callins’ motion does not substantially comply with the requirements of Miss.Code, 1972, Ann., Section 99-39-9, and the same is hereby, denied and dismissed for this reason also.

¶ 14. On this record, the Court of Appeals, in reliance on this Court’s decisions in Boyington and Moody, determined that Callins was entitled to an evidentiary hearing before the trial judge to determine (1) if Callins had satisfied his part of the plea agreement by doing all he could do to forfeit certain personal property and, if so, (2) whether Callins had detrimentally relied on the provisions of the joint plea agreement between himself and the State, thus requiring the trial court to sentence Callins pursuant to the plea agreement. Callins v. State, 975 So.2d at 247-48, 2007 MissApp. LEXIS 243, **10-13, ¶¶ 11-13.

¶ 15. In her dissent, Judge Carlton thoroughly discussed and distinguished both Boyington and Moody, finding instead that the case sub judice was more akin to Martin v. State, 635 So.2d 1352 (Miss.1994). Callins, 975 So.2d at 251-56, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243, **21-39, ¶¶ 22-44 (Carlton, J., dissenting). We agree with Judge Carlton’s analysis.

¶ 16. In Boyington, the defendant was indicted for the crime of selling less than one kilogram of marihuana and later apprehended in the state of Pennsylvania. Boyington, 389 So.2d at 487. Boyington waived extradition and en route back to Mississippi, he informed an agent with the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics (MBN) that he wanted to try to “help himself.” As a result, in exchange for a recommendation of probation, Boyington worked undercover with the MBN and developed about ten drug cases. Id. at 487-88. With both the district attorney and the circuit judge having knowledge of Boying-ton’s undercover work with the MBN, and at the request of the MBN agent, the district attorney informed the circuit judge, prior to the trial date, of the proposed plea agreement, which included a sentence recommendation of probation. However, the circuit judge informed the district attorney that this recommendation was not agreeable with him, whereupon the district attorney made an alternative proposal to the circuit judge that he (the district attorney) would recommend a two-year penitentiary sentence in return for the defendant’s guilty plea. This proposal was agreeable to the circuit judge. Id. at 488. However, Boyington declined the alternative proposed plea agreement, and the case ultimately went to trial, resulting in a jury verdict of guilty. The trial judge sentenced Boyington to a term of eight years in the state penitentiary. Id. at 488-90. This Court acknowledged, inter alia, that plea bargaining was an essential part of the criminal justice system and that the imposition of a sentence upon a criminal defendant is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and such sentence will not be reversed or otherwise disturbed if the sentence is within the statutory limits. Id. at 491 (citations omitted). Notwithstanding this Court’s acknowledgment of these basic precepts, and without any citation to relevant authority, this Court concluded:

However, under the peculiar facts of this case, where we do not find error which requires reversal for a new trial, but where the appellant, with the knowledge of the trial court, worked for the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics as an undercover informant, and was promised by the Bureau and district attorney that they would recommend probation, which led appellant to believe he would be placed on probation, we hold justice requires that the judgment of the lower court sentencing appellant to eight (8) years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary be vacated and that the case be remanded to the lower court, with instructions that appellant be placed on probation under such terms and conditions as the lower court may prescribe.[]

Id.

¶ 17. As Judge Carlton pointed out in her dissent, Boyington is distinguishable for several reasons, including the fact that, contrary to the conduct of the trial judge in Boyington, Judge Aycock and Judge Funderburk, in the case sub judice, in no way involved themselves in the plea bargaining process between the State and Callins and his attorney. Callins, 975 So.2d at 253-54, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243, *28, ¶ 31 (Carlton, J., dissenting). In fact, at the plea hearing, Judge Aycock unequivocally informed Callins that the court was not bound by the State’s recommendation of a sentence to time served, and that the court could instead impose the maximum twenty-four-year sentence. Callins clearly stated that he understood what Judge Aycock was saying to him.

¶ 18. The Court of Appeals also cited this Court’s decision in Moody to under-gird its decision in the case sub judice. In Moody, the defendant was charged in a multi-count indictment on two counts of capital murder and one count of simple murder, meaning that if he went to trial and was found guilty of capital murder, he stood the possibility of being sentenced to death by the sentencing jury. Moody, 716 So.2d at 593. In order to avoid the death penalty, Moody entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whereby, in return for his guilty pleas and his cooperation to fully reveal his knowledge of the crimes for which he was indicted as well as an unsolved, unrelated murder and other crimes, the State would recommend to the trial judge that Moody receive two life sentences to run consecutively. Id. Also, pursuant to the MOU, Moody agreed to testify truthfully against his co-defendants at their trials. Moody’s subsequent polygraph examinations concerning the facts and circumstances surrounding the murders suggested that Moody was indeed being truthful with law enforcement officials. Id. Notwithstanding this MOU and Moody’s actions taken in reliance upon it, the trial judge refused at the plea hearing to accept Moody’s guilty pleas, reasoning, inter alia, that the MOU had been entered into by a district attorney who was no longer serving; that the district attorney entered into the MOU without consulting the trial judge; that the district attorney should have “gotten authority” from the trial judge to enter into the MOU; that he “would hope that [the district attorney] would have consulted the alleged victim’s family members,” and that the “heinousness” of the crimes dictated that Moody should not be able to escape the death penalty. Id.

¶ 19. After granting Moody’s petition for interlocutory appeal, this Court addressed the single issue of whether the MOU incorporating the plea agreement between Moody and the State should be enforced. Moody asserted that the MOU should be enforced because he was improperly induced to plead guilty by the State’s promise that he would not be subjected to the death penalty. Further, he said he detrimentally relied on the MOU by (1) providing information on his involvement and the involvement of others in the murders, (2) disclosing fully all information within his knowledge concerning the murders for which he was indicted and another separate murder, (3) submitting to and passing polygraph examinations concerning his statements, and (4) agreeing to testify against his co-defendants. Id. at 593-94. This Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, stating, inter alia:

One, the trial court clearly abused its discretion in flatly refusing to accept Moody’s pleas of guilt based solely upon the reasons indicated in the record. Two, Moody did indeed detrimentally rely on the [MOU] by substantially performing many of the terms of the [MOU] before the trial court refused to accept the guilty pleas and enforce the [MOU].

Id. at 594 (emphasis in original). In finding that, on remand, the trial court must enforce the MOU, in toto, we stated:

However this Court has never held that a trial court may decline to accept a proffered guilty plea to capital murder simply because the court does not wish to see the defendant sentenced to something less than death in exchange for valuable information about the charged offenses and other crimes. Moreover, no authority exists to support the trial court’s other reasons for rejecting Moody’s guilty pleas, such as his vague concern that the victims’ families had not been consulted and his erroneous assertion that the district attorney exceeded its [sic] discretion in entering the [MOU] with Moody. To the contrary, the special prosecutor in this case, stated in response to Moody’s petition for interlocutory appeal that his file reflected that the family members were consulted prior to the execution of the [MOU]. In addition, the special prosecutor noted that the trial court did not have the authority to enter into plea negotiations and that the prosecuting office, not the trial court, decides whether to seek the death penalty even in the most heinous capital murder cases.

Id. at 594-95 (emphasis in original).

¶ 20. Likewise, as noted by this Court, since Moody was indicted for capital murder, the trial court had no sentencing options under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-101, since only a jury could make the determination that Moody should suffer the death penalty. If the sentencing jury was unable unanimously to agree on a sentence of either death, life without parole, or life, the trial judge would be mandated by statute to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. Id. at 595. Also, we agreed with the State’s assertion that it was an appropriate function of the prosecution, and not of the court, to decide whether the death penalty would be sought in a capital murder case. Id. This Court likewise relied on Edwards v. State, 465 So.2d 1085 (Miss.1985), and Boyington to find that Moody had, in fact, detrimentally relied on the MOU, thus requiring its enforcement. Id.

¶ 21. Again, we agree with Judge Carlton that Moody is distinguishable from the case sub judice. Callins, 975 So.2d at 251, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243, *23, ¶ 24 (Carlton, J., dissenting). In today’s case, Judge Funderburk, as the sentencing judge, focused on Callins’s criminal history (six prior felony convictions) and Callins’s untruthfulness with the court concerning his financial ability to hire a lawyer and his criminal history (stating under oath in open court that he had only one prior felony conviction). In arriving at his sentence, Judge Funderburk addressed in open court his reliance on the probation officer’s pre-sentence report and the fact that Callins had lied under oath both to him and to Judge Aycock about his employment status and that he had lied to Judge Aycock when he stated to her under oath that he had only one prior felony conviction. Callins informed Judge Ay-cock at the plea hearing that he knew the court was not bound by any sentencing recommendation, and in the end, Judge Funderburk imposed a sentence of eight years to serve by way of imprisonment, which sentence was only one-third of the maximum statutory sentence which could have been imposed. See Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-139(e)(1)(D) (Rev.2005). Thus Judge Funderburk’s actions are a far cry from the actions of the trial judge in Moody.

¶ 22. Finally, as Judge Carlton noted in her dissent, the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case sub judice are more akin to those set out in Martin v. State, 635 So.2d 1352 (Miss.1994). See Callins, 975 So.2d at 253-54, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243, **29-31, ¶¶ 33-35 (Carlton, J., dissenting). In Martin, the defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of armed robbery on the day his case was set for trial in the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial District of Harrison County. During the plea colloquy, the trial judge informed Martin, inter alia, that: (1) armed robbery carried a mandatory minimum statutory penalty of three years; (2) since the State had abandoned its effort to seek the maximum penalty of life imprisonment, the trial judge had authority to sentence Martin to a term of imprisonment deemed to be less than Martin’s life expectancy; (3) the then-applicable statute provided for no parole eligibility until the defendant had served at least ten years of a sentence of more than ten years; and (4) on a sentence of ten years or less, the defendant was required by statute to serve the sentence, day-for-day, without the possibility of parole. Id. at 1353. Upon the request of the trial judge, the prosecution informed the court that the plea agreement reached among the State, Martin, and Martin’s counsel was that, in exchange for Martin’s testimony against his co-defendants, the State would recommend a sentence of five years to run concurrently with a three-year sentence imposed by the Jackson County Circuit Court. Id. On at least three occasions, the trial judge informed Martin that he was not bound by the sentence recommendation and that he could impose upon Martin a sentence of up to thirty years, and Martin stated he understood. The trial court deferred sentencing in order to receive a “full-blown” pre-sentence report, stating, “I don’t know whether or not I’ll follow the recommendation.” Id. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge opined that Martin and his two co-defendants collectively had committed more than one hundred juvenile/adult misdemeanor/felony crimes, and thus sentenced each defendant to a term of eight years, three years more than the bargained-for sentence. Id. at 1353-54.

¶23. On appeal, Martin argued that the trial court was bound by the plea agreement since the plea agreement involved not only a recommended sentence, but also a provision that Martin ■ would testify against his co-defendants; however, this Court affirmed the trial judge’s eight-year sentence imposed upon Martin. Id. at 1354. Citing Moore v. State, 394 So.2d 1336 (Miss.1981), we stated that if, during the plea colloquy, the trial court has informed the defendant that the court is not bound by any sentence recommendation, and if the record reflects that the trial court is not involved in the plea bargaining process and the prosecutor makes the recommended sentence pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court commits no error by not following the State’s sentencing recommendation, so long as the sentence imposed is within the maximum limits prescribed by the applicable statute. Martin, 635 So.2d at 1355. In Martin, this Court distinguished both Boyington and Salter v. State, 387 So.2d 81 (Miss.1980). Id. at 1354-55.

¶ 24. With the facts of Martin and the case sub judice in mind, Judge Carlton stated in her dissent, inter alia, that Cal-lins was informed of the plea agreement during the plea colloquy and the fact that the trial court was not bound by the State’s recommendation; that Callins had the opportunity to inform the trial court of any perceived belief that the trial court would be bound by the sentence recommendation, and yet he not only failed to avail himself of this opportunity, but he instead clearly stated that he understood the trial court was not bound by the State’s sentence recommendation; that Martin is consistent with the provisions of URCCC 8.04(B)(2) and URCCC 8.04(B)(4); that the State fulfilled its responsibility by making the agreed-upon sentence recommendation; and that Callins understandably “possessed a hope of leniency,” but the sentencing judge, relying on the pre-sentence investigation report and Callins’s untruthful written and oral statements to both judges before whom he appeared, did not abuse his discretion in refusing to follow the joint sentence recommendation in imposing sentence. Thus, Judge Carlton “rejeetfed] the majority’s determination that the trial court may be bound to sentence Callins in accordance with the State’s recommendation.” Id. at 254, at **30-32, ¶¶ 34-36 (Carlton, J., dissenting). We thus find that Martin is applicable to the case sub judice, as opposed to Boyington and Moody. In other words, our cases discussing detrimental reliance are not applicable to today’s case.

¶25. In sum, Judge Funderburk did not commit error by summarily denying and dismissing Callins’s motion for post-conviction relief. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-11(2) (Rev.2007) provides that the trial judge may summarily dismiss a motion for post-conviction relief “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the [prisoner] is not entitled to any relief.” Indeed, Judge Funderburk found that the allegations contained in Callins’s post-conviction relief motion were contradicted by Cal-lins’s sworn testimony at the plea hearing before Judge Aycock, as revealed in the transcript of the plea hearing. Therefore, pursuant to the statute and case law, Judge Funderburk was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Callins’s post-conviction relief motion. Taylor v. State, 682 So.2d 359, 363-66 (Miss.1996); Harris v. State, 578 So.2d 617, 620 (Miss.1991). See also King v. State, 679 So.2d 208, 210-11 (Miss.1996); Smith v. State, 636 So.2d 1220, 1224 (Miss.1994).

¶ 26. Having fully addressed the issue before us, we feel compelled to address certain language contained in the Court of Appeals’ opinion in the case sub judice. That court stated, inter alia:

While Callins did respond affirmatively when asked if he understood that the trial court was not bound by the State’s recommendation, it is of no moment. The same may well be a misstatement of the law where detrimental reliance exists and a defendant has performed his part of the plea agreement. Additionally, inherent in the question itself are two logical interpretations. First, “I understand that the judge is not a ‘rubber stamp’ for the district attorney in sentencing.” Second, “Even though I understand the judge is not a ‘rubber stamp’ for the district attorney in sentencing, I truly believe the judge will honor his request, and this belief is a significant inducement to my plea of guilt.” Each interpretation is equally logical.
A circuit judge has the most solemn duty to make absolutely certain, to the very best of his or her ability, that a defendant is making a truly free and voluntary plea. A much more telling colloquy of the impact the plea bargain recommendation had on Callins’s, or would have on any defendant’s, decision to plead guilty would be, “Mr. Callins, I do not intend to honor your plea bargain with the State. I do not care if you have agreed to forfeit your claim to $80,000 worth of property. At your sentencing hearing, I do not intend to suspend your sentence and place you on post-release supervision. Instead, I intend to sentence you to serve twenty years in the penitentiary. Mr. Callins, do you still wish to plead guilty?” It is only when we can say with confidence from the record before us that Callins’s answer would have been ‘yes/ evincing a lack of detrimental reliance upon the recommendation, should we deny an evidentia-ry hearing. Today, we are not so prepared.

Callins v. State, 975 So.2d at 250, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243, **19-20, ¶¶ 19-20.

¶ 27. With the utmost respect for our learned colleagues on the Court of Appeals, we reject this analysis. We can interpret their language but one way. The Court of Appeals suggests trial judges, at the time of the guilty plea colloquy, declare that he/she does not intend to accept the sentence recommendation; and the trial judge must declare the specific sentence he/she intends to impose, without taking the matter under advisement and, many times, without the benefit of a presentence investigation report. According to the Court of Appeals, this information must be revealed to the defendant at the time of the plea hearing.

¶ 28. First of all, the revised guilty plea colloquy suggested by the Court of Appeals would judicially abrogate the provisions of Rule 11.02 of the Mississippi Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice. URCCC 11.02 affords our trial judges the opportunity to direct, prior to sentencing, that a presentence investigation be conducted and a report submitted pursuant to the investigation. Such a pre-sentence report usually will contain vital information to aid the trial judge concerning sentencing. According to URCCC 11.02, the presentence report may contain such information as the defendant’s criminal history; financial condition; educational background; employment background and military record; social record regarding family relationships, marital status and residence history; and the environment to which the defendant would return if given probation. URCCC 11.02 also provides that the presentence investigation can focus on gathering information about special resources available to assist the defendant if he/she is in need of rehabilitative programs or vocational programs, and/or a physical and mental examination.

¶ 29. We pose this question: What if, at the time of the plea hearing, the trial judge has no clue as to whether he/she might later decide not to accept the sentence recommendation because of what the trial judge will learn after receiving a pre-sentence report and/or at a later sentencing hearing, where evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances will be received? The practical effect of the Court of Appeals’ approach via this revised plea colloquy would be that sentencing hearings after guilty pleas in which there exist sentence recommendations would become obsolete. The trial judge would be compelled to inform the defendant at the plea hearing as to whether he/she intended to accept the sentence recommendation.

¶ 30. Recently, in Taggart v. State, 957 So.2d 981, 994 (Miss.2007), this Court stated:

We also take this opportunity to make a few additional observations about sentencing in general. There are at least four generally recognized factors that any sentencing judge should consider in the exercise of discretionary sentencing of any defendant who stands before the court for imposition of sentence: (1) Rehabilitation; (2) Retribution; (3) Separation from society; and (4) Deterrence, both general and specific.

Id. at 994. We then proceeded to discuss in more detail the importance of the trial judge’s consideration of these well-recognized sentencing factors. Id. at 994-95. However, based on what the Court of Appeals would now require of a judge during the guilty plea colloquy, our trial judges no longer would be able to consider these factors in cases involving a plea agreement, because the trial judge would be unable to defer sentencing to gather additional information. According to the Court of Appeals, the trial judge would have to tell the defendant at the time of the plea hearing what specific sentence he/she intends to impose upon the defendant.

¶ 31. Also, it is hardly an uncommon occurrence that one judge in the judicial district would conduct a plea colloquy with a defendant and accept a negotiated guilty plea (or an open plea), and another judge in the judicial district would impose sentence upon the defendant at a later date. This is exactly what happened in today’s case. We thus state the obvious. Based on the Court of Appeals’ revised plea colloquy, Judge Aycock was required to inform Callins at the plea hearing that Judge Funderburk was not going to accept the State’s plea recommendation. Not only that, Judge Aycock was required to inform Callins as to the specific sentence Judge Funderburk would later impose upon Callins, even before Judge Fun-derburk received the presentence report that revealed that Callins had not one prior felony conviction (as he stated under oath to Judge Aycock), but six prior felony convictions.

¶ 32. Judge Carlton succinctly analyzed the majority’s opinion:

The majority’s holding undermines the purpose and validity of the guilty plea colloquy. Where the transcript of the plea colloquy reflects that a defendant was fully informed regarding a certain consequence of his guilty plea, he should not later be heard to claim that he was unaware of the consequence.

Callins, 975 So.2d at 256, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243, **38-39, ¶44 (Carlton, J., dissenting).

¶ 33. We thus reject the notion that our trial judges, at the time of the guilty plea colloquy in cases involving plea agreements, must be required to declare: (1) that they do not intend to accept the sentence recommendation; and (2) the specific sentence they intend to impose; so that this information can be conveyed to the defendant before accepting the defendant’s guilty plea.

¶ 34. In sum, we find this issue raised by the State of Mississippi in its petition for writ of certiorari meritorious.

CONCLUSION

¶ 35. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate and affirm the Alcorn County Circuit Court’s judgment denying Callins’s motion for post-conviction relief.

¶ 36. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE ALCORN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., EASLEY, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ„ CONCUR. DIAZ, P.J., AND GRAVES, J, DISSENT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

      . After indictment, Callins executed a sworn affidavit of indigency stating, inter alia, that he was unemployed and had no real or personal property to employ retained counsel. The relevance of this fact will become evident later in this opinion.

      . Callins likewise filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that he was misled by the prosecutor's sentence recommendation of a probationary sentence when he clearly was not entitled to a probationary sentence pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 47-7-33 since he had a prior felony conviction. The record does not reflect that the trial judge ever ruled on Callins’s pro se motion; however, even if we were to consider the merits of these allegations, the issue raised in Callins’s pro se motion is rendered moot by this Court’s decision in Johnson v. State, 925 So.2d 86 (Miss.2006).

      . We feel comfortable in malting this statement inasmuch as the dissent addresses only the third issue.

      . The majority stated that "[i]n order to show detrimental reliance, the defendant must show some 'additional servitude to the government.’ ” Callins, 975 So.2d at 247-48, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243, *10, ¶ 11 (quoting Christie v. State, 915 So.2d 1073, 1075 (Miss.Ct.App.2005)).

      . As part of the plea agreement, Callins agreed to forfeit the property seized. It is apparent from the record that the property had not actually been forfeited at the time of the sentencing hearing due to the competing interests of other individuals who were also claiming an interest in the property to be forfeited. However, this fact is of no moment in the disposition of today’s case.

      . When Callins was before Judge Aycock to enter his guilty plea, Judge Aycock requested Callins to reveal "all of your prior felony history.” After conferring with his counsel, Callins informed Judge Aycock of a 1990 conspiracy conviction in Madison County, Tennessee, for which he had served time. When Judge Aycock inquired if there were "[a]ny other felonies,” Callins responded, "No.”

      . However, we stay focused on the fact that Boyington ultimately did not plead guilty, but instead put his case before a jury, which found him guilty.

      . The majority's opinion generated a dissent from Justice Broom, joined by Justice Walker, wherein Justice Broom stated, inter alia, "I am not willing that we should for the first time ever, absent any statutory authority, where no reversible error is found, vacate a trial judge’s order and tell him he must place on probation one found guilty by a jury.” Boyington, 389 So.2d at 493. In making this statement, Justice Broom emphasized that Boyington had initiated the plea bargaining process; there was an alternative recommendation for either a light sentence or probation; no one reneged on a promise; Boying-ton rejected the proffered two-year sentence; and even after a jury trial and verdict of guilty, the trial judge sentenced Boyington to a penitentiary term which was less than half the maximum sentence provided by statute. Id.

      . The Court of Appeals opined that since Judge Aycock was aware of the plea agreement at the plea hearing and continued the case for a subsequent sentencing hearing in order to allow Callins additional time to forfeit the subject property consistent with the plea agreement, "the trial court also involved itself in the [plea bargaining] process.” Callins, 975 So.2d at 248, 2007 Miss.App. LEXIS 243, **12-13, ¶ 13. Like Judge Carlton, we disagree that merely continuing the sentencing hearing until a future date somehow caused Judge Aycock to become a part of the plea bargaining process to justify the "detrimental reliance” argument. In fact, a continuance of the sentencing hearing allowed the sentencing judge to receive a pre-sentence investigation report on which the sentencing judge heavily relied in arriving at his sentence.

      . Normally a defendant has no right to a direct appeal after pleading guilty in the trial court, having instead to seek relief via the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-39-1, et seq. (Rev.2007). However, a defendant such as Martin may directly appeal from the trial court after a guilty plea when the only issue on appeal is the length of the sentence, and the defendant is not attacking the guilty plea itself. Johnson v. State, 925 So.2d 86, 88 n. 1 (Miss.2006) (citations omitted).


author: DICKINSON, Justice,

text:
    COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Lem Adams, III, Trustee and Mortgage Electronics Registration Systems, Inc. v. Julius C. PARKER, Jr.
    No. 2007-CA-00039-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    Feb. 21, 2008.
    Paul E. Rogers, Jackson, attorney for appellants.
    C. Ashley Atkinson, attorney for appel-lee.
    Before WALLER, P.J., DICKINSON and LAMAR, JJ.
   DICKINSON, Justice,

for the Court.

¶ 1. In this suit, a surviving spouse who did not sign a deed of trust on his homestead seeks to have it declared null and void. The trial court held the deed of trust was null and void. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

¶ 2. After Dorothy and Julius Parker married in 1990, Julius moved into Dorothy’s house in Pike County. As part of refinancing her home in August 2000, Dorothy executed a deed of trust in favor of Nationscredit Financial Services. Julius did not sign this deed of trust. On November 23, 2004, Dorothy executed a second deed of trust in favor of WMC Mortgage Company, which in turn assigned its interest to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Julius did not sign this deed of trust either. Dorothy used the proceeds from the refinancing to pay off the balance owed to Nationscredit and for other expenses. In her application for the Countrywide loan, Dorothy stated that she was separated from her husband. However, Dorothy and Julius were never separated and lived together during their entire marriage.

¶ 3. Dorothy died on August 6, 2005. In this lawsuit filed against Countrywide on February 16, 2006, Julius alleged that the property which is the subject of the deed of trust constituted his marital homestead and, since he did not sign the deed of trust as required by statute, it should be declared null and void. The Pike County Chancery Court declared the deed of trust null and void and refused to impose an equitable lien in favor of Countrywide. Countrywide appeals this decision.

ANALYSIS

¶ 4. In order to reverse a chancellor’s factual determinations, this Court must find that the Chancellor’s findings were manifestly wrong. Owen v. Owen, 928 So.2d 156, 168 (Miss.2006). A chancellor’s rulings on questions of law are reviewed de novo. Biglane v. Under the Hill Corp., 949 So.2d 9, 14 (Miss.2007).

¶ 5. This case is controlled entirely by statute. Section 89-1-29 of the Mississippi Code states in pertinent part:

A conveyance, mortgage, deed of trust or other incumbrance upon a homestead exempted from execution shall not be valid or binding unless signed by the spouse of the owner if the owner be married and living with the spouse.

Miss.Code Ann. § 89-1-29 (Rev.1999). This is a clear, unambiguous statute. Thus, we must apply its plain meaning. Richmond v. City of Corinth, 816 So.2d 373, 377-78 (Miss.2002). Because the requirements of the statute were not met, that is, because Julius did not sign the deed of trust as required by the statute, the deed of trust “shall not be valid or binding.”

¶ 6. Countrywide argues that, even if the deed of trust is declared invalid, it should be given an equitable lien. Countrywide cites Associates Financial Services of Mississippi Inc. v. Bennett, for the proposition that a creditor should be given an equitable lien when a party benefits from proceeds from a deed of trust. Bennett, 611 So.2d 973, 976-977 (Miss.1992). However, Bennett is clearly distinguishable.

¶ 7. The issue in that case was not the failure of a spouse to sign a deed of trust, but rather the lack of conveyance of a deed. Id. at 976. The statute which controlled the outcome of the case in Bennett did not state that the deed was invalid for lack of conveyance, but that the deed could not be recorded until conveyance occurred. Id. Thus, Bennett provides as no authority for Countrywide’s argument, and it cited no other authority suggesting that this Court has the power or authority to grant equitable liens in cases where a statute declares that the lien is not valid or binding.

CONCLUSION

¶ 8. When we apply, as we must, the plain language of Mississippi Code Section 89-1-29 to the facts of this case, we must hold that the deed of trust is invalid and unenforceable. Further, this Court does not have authority to issue an equitable lien under the facts of this case. Therefore, the judgement of the Chancery Court of Pike County is affirmed.

¶ 9. AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., EASLEY, CARLSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.

      . This loan shall be referred to herein as the "Countrywide Loan.”

      . Although the Bennett Court did grant an equitable lien, it cited no authority for the proposition that courts have the authority to grant equitable liens in cases of defective conveyances. Id. at 976-977. In any case, the Bennett holding is inapposite to the case before us today.