source: Caselaw Access Project

author: CHANDLER, Justice, RANDOLPH, Presiding Justice,

license: Public Domain

text:
    JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION.
    No. 2011-CT-00648-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    Dec. 12, 2013.

      Kathy B. Parker, Pascagoula, Angela E. Broun, attorneys for appellant.
    Albert B. White, Madison, Leanne F. Brady, attorneys for appellee.
   ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

CHANDLER, Justice,

for the Court:

¶ 1. The Jackson County Board of Supervisors terminated June Seaman, and she applied to the Mississippi Employment Security Commission (MESC) for unemployment benefits. At the MESC, a claims examiner, an administrative-law judge, and the Board of Review determined that Seaman was entitled to unemployment benefits because Jackson County had failed to prove by clear and convincing, substantial evidence that Seaman had been terminated for misconduct. The Circuit Court of Jackson County affirmed the agency’s decision. But the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the employer had proven misconduct by substantial evidence. We granted the MESC’s petition for certiorari and hold that the Court of Appeals improperly reweighed the evidence before the MESC. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate and affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County.

FACTS

¶ 2. The following facts were presented at a telephonic hearing before an administrative-law judge. Seaman worked in two capacities for Jackson County. She worked forty hours per week for the Jackson County Community Center as an administrative assistant to Jim Hart. She also worked as a carnival coordinator in her capacity as a member of the Jackson County Fair Association. The Fair Association organized the eight-day county fair every October. Seaman testified that she performed her fair work on nights and weekends. She submitted time sheets showing that she regularly worked thirty to forty hours per week for the fair during 2008-2009. Jackson County terminated Seaman, claiming that she could not have worked that many hours for the fair, and that she had falsified her time sheets, constituting misconduct disqualifying her for unemployment benefits under Mississippi Code Section 71-5-513(A)(l)(b) (Rev.2011).

A. Seaman’s fair work

¶ 3. Seaman testified that she had been with the fair association for twenty-six years and had worked as a carnival coordinator for fifteen years. She testified that she worked year-round to coordinate the fair. Her duties included submitting contracts to and coordinating with more than 100 vendors. This involved multiple phone calls and written correspondence. She testified that she spent hours on the phone discussing vendors with her Fair Association supervisor, Eddie Russell. She and Russell also coordinated meeting agendas for eight to ten Fair Association meetings per year. She contacted fifty to seventy-five schools per year. Before the fair, she made sure all contract labor was in place and that the barn and ticket office were ready. She worked with another Fair Association member to coordinate judges for various contests. After the fair, she typed and proofed the Fair Book, a project that took several weeks. She testified that, while she was allowed to perform fair work during her community-center job, her community-center job duties did not leave much time for fair work, so she did the bulk of it after hours. Seaman testified that no one else put in as much time preparing for the fair as she did.

¶ 4. Allen Smith, a member of the Fan-Board, disputed the amount of time Seaman legitimately could have spent on fair work. He testified that the Fair Board is a policymaker for the fair and oversees the Fair Association, which actually puts on the fair. Smith testified that he was familiar with the duties of a Fair-Association member. He testified that Seaman’s fair work was part-time and not year-round. Smith stated that, for the combined months of August, September, and October, Seaman should have worked only twenty to thirty hours total. In November, she should have worked fifteen to twenty hours in one two-week pay period. In January, February, and March, it was time to complete the Fair Book, requiring fifteen to twenty hours for all three months. In contrast with Seaman’s testimony, Smith testified that completion of the Fair Book merely required editing last year’s version. In April, her fair work should have taken five to ten hours. Smith testified that Seaman should have had no fair work at all in the months of December, May, June, and July.

B. Seaman’s time sheets

¶ 5. Seaman was paid for both jobs every two weeks with a single check. Seaman submitted a time sheet to the payroll clerk every two weeks. Each time sheet showed she worked eighty hours for the community center, and had an additional amount labeled “miscellaneous pay” for her fair work. Hart, her community-center supervisor, initialed each time sheet. A separate time sheet for each two-week period recorded the hours Seaman had worked for the fair. Seaman’s fair supervisor, Russell, was supposed to initial this time sheet. Seaman testified that, because Russell was busy with another job, he gave her permission to sign his initials to her fair-work time sheets. Seaman admitted that she did not check with Russell about the amount of time she reported, stating that “he always knew that the fair would get done and he always told me just go ahead and handle it.”

¶ 6. Russell did not testify. Hart testified that, the times he cheeked Seaman’s time sheets before initialing them, he did not see any miscellaneous pay for fair work noted on the time sheets. He testified that, after he initialed each time sheet, Seaman delivered the time sheet to Human Resources. Hart testified that Seaman was permitted to perform some fair-association duties while working at the community center, but he was unfamiliar with what those duties were. The payroll clerk, Belinda Lamey, testified that the number of hours Seaman reported raised “a red flag,” and she reported the matter to her supervisor in 2003 or 2004. However, the matter was not investigated until 2008 or 2009.

¶ 7. In late 2008, Jackson County hired a private investigator to determine whether Seaman was spending the time she reported on fair work. The results of the investigation were inconclusive. On July 21, 2009, Janet Krebs, the human resources director, investigated the matter. Krebs testified that Russell denied having signed Seaman’s time sheets. Krebs testified that Russell told her that Seaman had asked him to he and say that he had signed the time sheets. In contrast, Seaman testified that she admitted to Krebs that she had signed the time sheets, but with Russell’s permission. Seaman was suspended pending further investigation. Jackson County hired a handwriting expert to analyze the time-card signatures, but the results of that analysis were not admitted into evidence. Krebs testified that Seaman was fired for falsifying time sheets, a terminable offense according to the employee handbook.

C. MESC’s decision

¶ 8. A claims examiner found that Seaman was entitled to unemployment benefits. On appeal, the administrative-law judge found that Jackson County had failed to prove misconduct by clear and convincing, substantial evidence. The administrative-law judge found Seaman’s testimony about her job duties to be more credible than Smith’s, stating:

The claimant seems to have done the bulk of coordinating for the annual fair for well over a decade. It seems to the ALJ that she would be the best witness to what her duties would entail, whereas Mr. Smith’s testimony is mostly speculative. It is possible the claimant is set in her ways and did not use technology ... efficiently in her duties. Inefficiency is a very different matter from purposely turning in falsified time sheets.

The administrative-law judge found that, although Seaman had been allowed to complete fair work at her community-center job, she did not have time to do so, because her work for the community center regularly amounted to forty hours per week. The administrative-law judge recognized that Seaman had reported consistent hours for more than a year, but found that this consistency was circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing at best, because consistent hours may indicate that the worker is methodical and knows how long tasks will take. The administrative-law judge noted that the private investigator’s results had been inconclusive of fraudulent time-keeping. The administrative-law judge stated:

The ALJ concludes that the County’s case is mostly based on speculation as to whether her work for the Grounds truly took as much time as she submitted. That is not enough to be substantial evidence of wrong-doing. There is also the dispute as to whether her supervisor always actually signed her time-sheets, or whether they allowed her to sign in their place sometime[s]. The ALJ notes that the time-sheets are so consistent, the number of hours she submitted could have hardly come as a surprise to her supervisors. The claimant clearly and consistently testified that she believed she had been submitted [sic] her time-sheets properly.

¶ 9. Jackson County appealed to the MESC Board of Review, which affirmed and adopted the decision of the administrative-law judge.

D. Circuit Court and Court of Appeals decisions

¶ 10. The Jackson County Circuit Court found that the MESC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, noting that Seaman had given a first-hand account of her job duties and an acceptable explanation of her time sheets. But the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the facts clearly and convincingly established that Seaman had been terminated for misconduct. The Court of Appeals relied on Seaman’s time sheets, which reflected an “incredible and improbable number of hours worked by Seaman in light of her full-time employment elsewhere;” Russell’s hearsay statement to Krebs that Seaman had asked him to lie about having signed her time sheets; the fact that the employee handbook stated that falsifying time sheets is a terminable offense; and Seaman’s admission that she never checked with Russell before submitting her fair-work time sheets. In light of this evidence, the Court of Appeals found that the MESC arbitrarily and erroneously had determined that Jackson County’s case was based on speculation.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

¶ 11. A person is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits “for the week, or fraction thereof, which immediately follows the day on which he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work, if so found by the department.” Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(l)(b) (Rev. 2011). This Court has defined “misconduct” as

conduct evincing such willful and wanton disregard of the employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employee. Also, carelessness and negligence of such degree, or recurrence thereof, as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, and showing an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer, c[o]me within the term.

Wheeler v. Arriola, 408 So.2d 1381, 1383 (Miss.1982). However, “[m]ere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, or inadvertences and ordinary negligence in isolated incidents, and good faith errors in judgment or discretion [are] not considered ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of the statute.” Id. An employee’s conduct may constitute grounds for termination, yet be insufficient to constitute misconduct disqualifying the claimant from unemployment benefits. Acy v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 960 So.2d 592, 595 (Miss.Ct.App.2007). This Court has determined that falsification of time cards constitutes misconduct under Section 71-5-513(A)(l)(b). Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n v. Percy, 641 So.2d 1172, 1176 (Miss.1994).

¶ 12. The employer bears the burden of proving misconduct by substantial, clear, and convincing evidence. Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(l)(c) (Rev.2011); Foster v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 632 So.2d 926, 927 (Miss.1994). This evi-dentiary standard requires proof beyond a mere preponderance of the evidence. Shannon Engineering & Const., Inc. v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 549 So.2d 446, 450 n. 1 (Miss.1989).

¶ 13. On appeal of the decision of the MESC, “[a] rebuttable presumption exists in favor of the administrative agency and the challenging party has the burden of proving otherwise.” Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n v. Harris, 672 So.2d 739, 743 (Miss.1996). All levels of judicial review focus on the decision of the MESC Board of Review, as that is the final decision of the agency. Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-531 (Rev.2011). Mississippi Code Section 71-5-531 provides that, “[i]n any judicial proceedings under this section, the findings of the Board of Review as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of said court shall be confined to questions of law.” Id.

¶ 14. We must not disturb the Board’s decision unless the decision “(1) is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) is arbitrary or capricious, (3) is beyond the scope or power granted to the agency, or (4) violates one’s constitutional rights.” Sprouse v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 639 So.2d 901, 902 (Miss.1994). When a decision is supported by “such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” it is supported by substantial evidence. Hooks v. George County, 748 So.2d 678, 680 (Miss.1999). “Substantial evidence” is “something less than a preponderance of the evidence but more than a scintilla or glimmer.” Hinds County v. Miss. Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 61 So.3d 877, 885 n. 6 (Miss.2011) (quoting Miss. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Weems, 653 So.2d 266, 280-81 (Miss.1995)). And a decision that is supported by substantial evidence is not arbitrary and capricious. Queen City Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Miss. State Dep’t of Health, 80 So.3d 73, 78 (Miss.2011).

¶ 15. “Where there is substantial evidence, ‘an agency’s fact finding must be allowed to stand even though there might be room for disagreement on that issue.’ ” Hinds County School Dist. Bd. of Trustees v. R.B. ex rel. D.L.B., 10 So.3d 387, 395 (Miss.2008) (quoting Miss. Pub. Service Comm’n v. Merchants Truck Line, Inc., 598 So.2d 778, 782 (Miss.1992)). It is the role of the agency, in its expertise, to determine the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Merchants Truck Line, 598 So.2d at 782 (quoting State ex rel. Pittman v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 481 So.2d 302, 305 (Miss.1985)). An appellate court exceeds its authority if it reevaluates the evidence and “make[s] its own determination of the trustworthiness of some particular testimony.” Knight v. Public Employees’ Ret. Sys., 108 So.3d 912, 916 (Miss.2012) (quoting Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Cobb, 839 So.2d 605, 609 (Miss.Ct.App.2003)).

¶ 16. This standard of review is pivotal to our resolution of this appeal. Under our standard of review, even if there is evidence which would have supported a different result, we will not disturb a decision of the MESC that is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Thus, in reviewing the MESC’s decision in this case, this Court does not ask whether it believes that Seaman submitted false time sheets. Rather, the issue is whether substantial evidence supported the MESC’s decision that she did not do so, because it found the evidence submitted by Jackson County to be unconvincing.

¶ 17. We now determine whether the evidence supporting the MESC’s decision was substantial, that is, whether it constituted “such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Hooks, 748 So.2d at 680. The MESC relied most heavily on Seaman’s detailed testimony that her duties for the Fair Association were year-round and took thirty to forty hours per week. The MESC discounted Smith’s conflicting testimony, finding it to be speculative. This determination of the relative credibility of Seaman and Smith was supported by the fact that Smith never had worked for the Fair Association, the entity that put on the fair. Further, in contrast with Seaman’s detailed testimony, Smith provided few details about what Seaman’s job duties were and why they would have taken vastly less time than Seaman reported. The only specific information that he provided about her duties was that the fair book should have taken less time because Seaman should have edited last year’s version, rather than drafting an original document. But the MESC found this was evidence of Seaman’s inefficient use of technology, not her falsification of hours worked, and that Jackson County had failed to prove Seaman had not worked the hours she reported. While this Court may have reached a different conclusion as an original fact-finder, this was the type of reasonable weighing of conflicting evidence and determination of the witnesses’ credibility that is within the purview of the MESC to perform.

¶ 18. The MESC noted the conflicting testimony regarding the signatures on Seaman’s time sheets. Krebs testified to a hearsay statement from Russell that, during the investigation, Seaman had asked him to lie and say he had signed the time sheets. Hart testified that he initialed Seaman’s time sheets and he never saw any notations for “miscellaneous pay” for her fair work. Seaman testified that Russell had instructed her to sign his initials to her fair-work time sheets. The MESC relied on Seaman’s testimony, finding it supported by the facts that Seaman consistently had reported thirty to forty hours per week over one year and that the “the number of hours she submitted could have hardly come as a surprise to her supervisors.” This evidence substantially supported the MESC’s conclusion that Jackson County had failed to substantially, clearly, and convincingly prove that Seaman had falsified her time sheets. Again, while this Court might have found otherwise, when substantial evidence exists, “an agency’s fact finding must be allowed to stand even though there might be room for disagreement on that issue.’ ” Hinds County Sch. Dist. Bd. of Trustees, 10 So.3d at 395 (quoting Merchants Truck Line, 598 So.2d at 782).

¶ 19. Given the conflicting evidence before the MESC and the fact that Jackson County bore the burden of proof of misconduct by substantial, clear, and convincing evidence, we find that the ME SC’s decision that Jackson County did not prove misconduct was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious. We note that, while the Court of Appeals disagreed, relying heavily on Russell’s statement that Seaman had asked him to lie, Russell’s statement constituted uncorroborated hearsay, and the MESC had no obligation to credit it. See Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n v. McLane-Southern, Inc., 583 So.2d 626, 628 (Miss.1991). We find that the Court of Appeals erred by reevaluating the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the MESC. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate and affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County.

¶ 20. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED.

WALLER, C.J., DICKINSON, P.J., LAMAR, KITCHENS, KING AND COLEMAN, JJ., CONCUR.

RANDOLPH, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY PIERCE, J.

RANDOLPH, Presiding Justice,

concurring in result only:

¶ 21. Special Appointed Circuit Judge Jerry 0. Terry, Sr., determined that “the findings and conclusions of the ALJ ... which were affirmed by the Board of Review ... are supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.... ” Based on the record, I can discern no error in Judge Terry’s conclusion. Thus, I concur in the result only.

PIERCE, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.

      . While Seaman’s admitted signing of her supervisor's initials to her time sheets was a form of falsification, the MESC's finding that she was directed to do so by her supervisor substantially supports its conclusion that Jackson County did not prove misconduct.


author: ISHEE, J.,

text:
    Phillip MORROW, Appellant v. Joel MORROW, Administrator of the Estates of Gocher Morrow, Deceased, and Reba Eloise Sparks Morrow, Deceased, and Ronald Morrow, Appellees. Phillip Morrow, Appellant v. Joel Morrow, Administrator of the Estates of Gocher Morrow, Deceased, and Reba Eloise Sparks Morrow, Deceased, and Ronald Morrow, Appellees.
    Nos. 2009-CA-01319-COA, 2009-CA-01355-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Oct. 2, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied Mar. 19, 2013.

      Casey L. Lott, attorney for appellant.
    Michael D. Tapscott, Tupelo, attorney for appellees.
    Before LEE, C.J., ISHEE and FAIR, JJ.
   ISHEE, J.,

for the Court:

¶ 1. In 2011, the Itawamba County Chancery Court ruled to divide land once owned by Gocher and Reba Morrow (the Morrows) among their three children— Phillip, Joel, and Ronald. Phillip appeals, claiming the facts support his theory that his parents intended for the land to be solely owned by him. He alternatively asserts that if the chancery court’s judgment is affirmed as to the property’s ownership, he should be granted an equitable lien on the property for improvements he made to the land over the course of almost thirty years. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. The Morrows owned two tracts of land in Itawamba County, Mississippi, consisting of approximately 160 acres and 40 acres, respectively (the property). According to Phillip, in the mid-1980’s, the Morrows entered into an oral agreement with him that if he indefinitely helped his father farm the property, he would inherit the property as a sole owner upon the Morrows’ deaths. Phillip asserts the Morrows extended this offer to each of them three children, but he was the only one to accept. However, on October 6, 1993, the Morrows deeded the property to Phillip without reservations (Deed 1) after Reba was involved in a motor-vehicle accident she feared would incite litigation against them.

¶ 3. Phillip claims that three years later, he and the Morrows decided Phillip should deed the property back to the Morrows so that they could, in turn, deed the property back to Phillip while reserving unto themselves a life estate. As such, Phillip and the Morrows hired Nell May, a local attorney, to help complete the transactions. However, Phillip testified that he did not provide any instruction to May regarding the transactions and that he was unaware of his parents’ instructions to May regarding the transactions.

¶ 4. The pertinent land records on file reflect that on April 22, 1996, a warranty deed was executed from Phillip to the Morrows (Deed 3) conveying the property to Phillip’s parents. Deed 3 was verified by a notary public as being “signed, sealed and delivered” and also filed of record in the chancery court on April 22, 1996. On March 23, 1996, the Morrows executed a warranty deed conveying the property to Phillip with the reservation of a life estate unto themselves (Deed 2). Deed 2 was verified by a notary public as being “signed, sealed and delivered” on March 23, 1996. However, Deed 2 was not filed in the chancery court until April 23, 1996.

¶ 5. On January 5, 1999, Gocher passed away, followed by the death of Reba on January 1, 2000. Shortly thereafter, Phillip filed a complaint against his brothers in the chancery court to quiet and confirm title and his sole ownership of the property. In 2004, Phillip’s case was bifurcated to address the separate issues of Phillip’s claim of ownership and his alternate claim for an equitable lien on the property should he not be granted sole ownership.

¶ 6. In 2011, the chancery court determined that the law supported the passing of the property to the Morrows estate upon Reba’s death in 2000 and division of the property equally among the three brothers. The chancery court also found Phillip’s claim for an equitable lien to be without merit. Phillip now appeals claiming the chancery court made numerous errors in its determination that he is not the sole owner of the property and that the chancery court erred in arriving at its determination that he is not entitled to an equitable lien on the property. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the chancery court.

DISCUSSION

¶ 7. It is well settled that a chancellor’s findings “are subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” Carlisle v. Allen, 40 So.3d 1252, 1256 (¶ 20) (Miss.2010) (citing Barton v. Barton, 790 So.2d 169, 175 (¶ 17) (Miss.2001)). We will not disturb a chancellor’s findings when they are “supported by substantial evidence!,] unless the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong [or] clearly erroneous, or [applied] an erroneous legal standard!.]” Olive v. McNeal, 47 So.3d 735, 739 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2010). However, questions of law are reviewed de novo. Miller v. Parker McCurley Props., L.L.C., 36 So.3d 1234, 1239 (¶ 9) (Miss.2010) (citation omitted).

I. Ownership of the Property

A. Effective Date and Reformation of Deed 2 and Deed 3

¶ 8. In his first assignment of error, Phillip asserts the chancery court “avoided” the issue of delivery of Deed 2 and Deed 3. Phillip readily admits in his brief: “Generally, a deed only takes effect upon delivery, not upon signing.” See, e.g., Crooker v. Hollingsworth, 210 Miss. 636, 639, 46 So.2d 541, 542 (1950); Cannon v. Holburg Mercantile Co., 108 Miss. 102, 104, 66 So. 400, 402 (1914). Indeed, Mississippi law directs attention toward the date of delivery in matters questioning the effective date of a deed. See Grubbs v. Everett, 236 Miss. 698, 700-01, 111 So.2d 923, 923-24 (1959). In that vein, the chancery court recognized that the matter of delivery relates back to “the acknowledgment ... where the one who notarized [Deed 2 and Deed 3] said it was signed and delivered.”

¶ 9. Here, the same notary public, attorney May, verified both Deed 2 and Deed 3. In Deed 2, May stated that on March 23, 1996, the Morrows personally appeared before her and “acknowledged that they each signed, sealed and delivered the foregoing Warranty Deed [to convey the property to their son] on the day and year therein mentioned for the purposes therein expressed as their act and deed.” Again, the date the Morrows listed on Deed 2 was March 23,1996, and the date May listed on her notary-public verification was also March 23, 1996. As such, the Morrows delivered Deed 2 on March 23, 1996. The same process took place with regard to Deed 3. In Deed 3, May noted that Phillip “acknowledged that he signed, sealed and delivered the foregoing Warranty Deed [to convey the property to his parents] on the day and year therein mentioned for the purposes therein expressed as his act and deed.” Phillip and May noted April 22, 1996, as the signing and delivery date for Deed 3.

¶ 10. Phillip asserts that “it is the intention of the parties that is ultimately determinative with regard to whether a deed has been delivered.” See 23 Am. Jur.2d Deeds § 118. Phillip asserts that the intention of the parties was for his parents to retain a life estate in the property but for Phillip to ultimately inherit the land. However, he acknowledged in his testimony that he cannot independently remember the date on which he signed Deed 3 without looking at the deed itself. He also testified that he did not know when his parents signed Deed 2 or what instructions were given to May regarding recording the deed. Finally, he admitted that he could not remember which deed was signed first. Furthermore, neither May nor any of May’s staff were ever called as witnesses, and the Morrows and May are all now deceased. Therefore, the only testimony available with regard to the intention of the parties is that of Phillip.

¶ 11. The argument of intent is directly related to Phillip’s second assignment of error that the chancery court improperly declined to reform Deed 2 to reflect a delivery date of April 23, 1996— the date on which Deed 2 was recorded in the chancery court. In order to reform a deed, the movant must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that an error exists in a deed that contradicts the true intention of the parties involved. Wright v. O’Daniel, 58 So.3d 694, 700 (¶ 29) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citation omitted). In order to meet the applicable standard of proof, the movant must show that either:

(a) [T]he erroneous part of the [deed] is shown to have occurred by a mutual mistake ..., or (b) the error has arisen by the unilateral mistake of one party and that mistake is accompanied by evidence of some sort of fraud, deception, or other bad faith activity by the other party that prevented or hindered the mistaken party in the timely discovery of the mistake.

Brown v. Chapman, 809 So.2d 772, 774 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (citation omitted).

¶ 12. Again, Phillip failed to provide evidence, other than his own testimony, to prove the intention of the parties regarding delivery differed from the actual delivery of the deeds. As stated by the chancery court:

No proof was presented to this court to show that either of the dates of the 1996 Deeds were incorrect. Neither Nell May nor any of her staff was called as a witness. Phillip Morrow testified that he did not know ... which of the Deeds was executed first.... Suffice it to say here, this [court] does not find that there was sufficient proof presented to it to reform the Deed in question. The allegation [was] made that it was probably and possibly a scrivener’s error at one point [with regard to] the date. There was no proof presented to me to that effect. And the [c]ourt cannot presume upon the proof.

¶ 13. We agree that Phillip has failed to meet the burden of proof for showing that the chancery court abused its discretion in addressing the date of delivery of the deeds. We further find that Phillip lacked the proof necessary to show that mutual mistake or fraud existed in the execution and delivery of Deed 3 such that the deed should be reformed. These issues are without merit.

B. Doctrine of After-Acquired Property

¶ 14. Phillip next asserts that even if Deed 3 were not reformed, title to the property should have vested in Phillip under the doctrine of after-acquired property (DAAP). Under the DAAP:

If a grantor having no title to land purports to convey it by a warranty deed, he will be estopped to show that at the time of the deed he had no title to convey. If he later acquires the title, his after-acquired title will pass to the grantee without further conveyance by way of estoppel.

Butler v. City of Eupora, 725 So.2d 158, 160 (¶ 9) (Miss.1998) (citation omitted). Butler went on to note that the DAAP must be acknowledged as an affirmative defense in the pleadings of the case so as to give the opposing party notice. Id. at (¶ 7).

¶ 15. Here, the chancery court noted that Phillip failed to raise the DAAP as an affirmative defense or mention the DAAP or its elements in any pleadings. Additionally, the record reflects that Phillip failed to designate any expert witnesses with regard to the DAAP either in his original designation of experts or his amended designation of experts. As such, the chancery court determined that Phillip failed to provide notice to Joel and Ronald that he was applying the DAAP to his case.

¶ 16. We agree. While Phillip argues the basis of the DAAP was set forth in his amended designation of attorney Tommy McElroy as an expert in the field of property law, we fail to see how a generalized designation of a property-law attorney translates into raising the DAAP as a defense. Phillip asserts the “spirit” of the law negates the mention of the DAAP as a specific doctrine. We have held that a doctrine need not be mentioned by name to apply as an affirmative defense, so long as the complaint or pleadings actually recite all of the elements of the applicable doctrine. See, e.g., Christian Methodist Episcopal Church v. S & S Constr. Co., 615 So.2d 568, 572 (Miss.1993). Since Phillip failed to either name the DAAP in his pleadings or illustrate the elements of the DAAP in his pleadings, he failed to meet the notice requirement necessary to invoke the DAAP.

¶ 17. Nonetheless, even if Phillip had met the notice requirement, his assertion of the DAAP fails on the merits. The DAAP is predicated on the theory that “if the grantor subsequently acquires title, which he has purported to convey, from other than the grantee himself or one claiming under or deriving title from him,” then the after-acquired title will lawfully pass to the grantee without encumbrance. 23 Am.Jur.2d Deeds § 279. Here, however, Phillip claims the benefit of the DAAP through his own re-conveyance of the property to his parents, not someone else’s conveyance of the property.

¶ 18. In order for the DAAP to apply to the present case, Phillip must have attempted to convey the property to his parents without any authority to do so. In other words, had the Morrows not conveyed the property to Phillip in Deed 1, perhaps the DAAP would apply since Phillip would not have legally been able to convey the property to his parents in Deed 3. However, having legally conveyed the property to his parents in Deed 3 as the final conveyance of land prior to his parents’ deaths, he may not now claim the benefits of the DAAP.

¶ 19. Furthermore, the DAAP is predicated upon the idea that an uninformed grantee should not be penalized if the grantor did not own the property at the time of conveyance, yet subsequently acquired it. Conversely, a grantee may not rely on the DAAP if he was “misled through his own want of reasonable care and circumspection [since] estoppel is denied where the party claiming it was put on inquiry as to the truth and had available means for ascertaining it.”

¶20. The record reflects that Phillip was well aware that he owned the property at the time he conveyed the property back to his parents. Additionally, both Phillip and the Morrows had the ability to contact May to determine exactly who owned the property during which periods of time. Accordingly, while we sympathize with Phillip’s plight in his argument regarding mistake in Deed 2 and Deed 3, we nonetheless find his issues meritless with regard to the DAAP.

II. Equitable Lien

¶ 21. In his final argument on appeal, Phillip argues the chancery court erred in denying his request for an equitable lien in the amount of $527,000 on the property to reflect the alleged unjust enrichment conferred upon Joel and Ronald through inheritance of the property. A chancery court is afforded “broad discretion” with regard to the grant or denial of an equitable lien, and its findings should not be disturbed unless “manifestly wrong [or] clearly erroneous, or [if] an erroneous legal standard was applied.” McGee v. McGee, 726 So.2d 1220, 1224 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (citation omitted).

¶ 22. Phillip cites Dudley v. Light, 586 So.2d 155, 159 (Miss.1991), for the proposition that a lien may be assigned on property under the general theory of justice “where it would be contrary to equity and good conscience for an individual to retain a property interest acquired at the expense of another.” As such, Phillip asserts that he incurred extensive farming costs and expenses, as well as hours of manual labor on the farm, from the 1980s until the chancery court’s conveyance of the property to the three brothers in 2011. The largest expenditure Phillip claims is $292,680 in his own labor on the property. Other expenses included mileage of $31,088.40; equipment parts and repairs of $14,835; costs of seed, trees, and chemicals in the amount of $54,865.49; and other expenses such as gas, oil, diesel, mowing, weed eating, utilities, and beaver control.

¶23. However, as noted by the chancery court, the overwhelming majority of Phillip’s expenses ultimately benefited Phillip since the profits of the property’s farming activities were enjoyed by Phillip as income. Additionally, Phillip conceded in his testimony that the farm expenses identified in his annual tax returns were approximately $140,000 less than the expenses he was claiming in support of his argument for an equitable lien. Finally, the record reflects that none of the expenses incurred by Phillip permanently improved the property such that Joel and Ronald would enjoy the fruits of Phillip’s labor after the property was divided.

¶ 24. We fail to find reversible error in the chancery court’s decision to deny Phillip’s request for an equitable lien in any amount on the property. This issue is without merit.

¶ 25. THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITAWAMBA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.

LEE, C.J., GRIFFIS, P.J., ROBERTS, MAXWELL, RUSSELL AND FAIR, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY. IRVING, P.J., NOT PARTICIPATING.


author: IRVING, P.J.,

text:
    Floyd K. LITTLE, Estate of Roger D. Pierce and Kelly Sykes, Appellants v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.
    No. 2011-SA-00693-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Oct. 9, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied Mar. 19, 2013.

      A. Malcolm N. Murphy, Mark A. Maples, Lucedale, attorneys for appellants.
    Trace D. McRaney, Gulfport, attorney for appellee.
    Before IRVING, P.J., RUSSELL and FAIR, JJ.
   IRVING, P.J.,

for the Court:

¶ 1. On February 16, 2006, Floyd K. Little, Roger D. Pierce, and Kelly Sykes filed suit in the George County Circuit Court against the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) for damages sustained as the result of a fallen tree. MDOT answered the complaint and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, declaring immunity pursuant to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA). The circuit court denied the motion. On July 24, 2010, MDOT filed its second renewed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the circuit court granted. Feeling aggrieved, Little appeals and argues that the circuit court erred in finding that right-of-way maintenance is a discretionary function and in finding that MDOT was immune from all of Little’s claims.

¶ 2. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

¶ 3. On November 26, 2004, a large and leaning pine tree fell across Mississippi Highway 26 in George County, Mississippi. Little, who was traveling east on Highway 26, ran into the tree. Immediately thereafter, Pierce, who was traveling west on Highway 26, ran into the tree, which drove the tree back into Little’s vehicle, causing additional damage. Sykes, who was traveling behind Pierce on Highway 26, slid into the rear end of Pierce’s vehicle. Little, Pierce, and Sykes suffered property damage. Little and Pierce sustained severe personal injuries.

¶ 4. Little’s complaint alleged that MDOT was negligent for failing to: (1) properly maintain, repair, and inspect Highway 26, (2) remove dead or dangerous trees near Highway 26, which endangered public travel, and (3) find and remove the leaning pine tree before it fell. MDOT responded that it was immune from liability because the duty to inspect, repair, and maintain Highway 26 and its right-of-way is discretionary.

¶5. Additional facts, as necessary, will be related during our analysis and discussion of the issues.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES

¶ 6. A motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure raises a question of law, which triggers a de novo review. Little v. Miss. Dep’t of Human Servs., 835 So.2d 9, 10-11 (¶ 5) (Miss.2002). “[I]n order to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, there must appear to a certainty that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that could be proved in support of the claim.” Little, 835 So.2d at 11 (¶ 6) (citations omitted).

¶ 7. The MTCA establishes the exclusive civil remedy against governmental entities and its employees for acts or omissions that give rise to a lawsuit. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-7 (Rev.2002). “The [MTCA] waives the State’s common-law tort immunity, but excepts from that waiver twenty-five categories of acts for which governmental entities continue to enjoy immunity from suit.” City of Jackson v. Doe ex rel. J.J., 68 So.3d 1285, 1287 (¶ 7) (Miss.2011) (citing Miss. Dep’t of Mental Health v. Shaw, 45 So.3d 656, 658 (¶ 8) (Miss.2010)). Little contends that MDOT waived its immunity because it had notice of a dangerous condition, which it failed to remedy. In response, MDOT contends that it is immune from suit pursuant to the “discretionary function” exemption found in Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-46—9(l)(d) (Supp.2011).

1. Discretionary-Function Exemption

¶ 8. The circuit court determined that, like highway maintenance, right-of-way maintenance is a discretionary function. Little asserts that right-of-way maintenance is a ministerial function as opposed to a discretionary function. Additionally, Little argues that right-of-way maintenance is different from highway maintenance because the two have separate budgets.

¶ 9. Our supreme court has stated that “[a] duty is discretionary when it is not imposed by law and depends upon the judgment or choice of the government entity or its employee.” Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. Montgomery, 80 So.3d 789, 795 (¶ 19) (Miss.2012). Conversely, “[a] duty is ministerial if it is positively imposed by law and required to be performed at a specific time and place, removing an officer’s or entity’s choice or judgment.” Id. (citing Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Magee, 29 So.3d 1, 5 (¶ 8) (Miss.2010)). Under section 11-46-9(l)(d) government entities enjoy immunity from liability for claims that are “[b]ased upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty ... whether or not the discretion be abused.” Accordingly, if right-of-way maintenance is a discretionary function, MDOT is immune from liability for claims based upon its performance or its failure to perform right-of-way maintenance.

¶ 10. Mississippi Code Annotated section 65-1-65 (Rev.2005) requires MDOT to, maintain state highways. Mississippi

Code Annotated section 65-1-1 (Rev.2005), provides that the definition of “highway” includes rights-of-way. Thus, MDOT also is statutorily mandated to maintain the rights-of-way of the state’s highways.

¶ 11. Our supreme court has long held that road maintenance and repair are discretionary, rather than ministerial functions. See, e.g., Mohundro v. Alcorn Cnty., 675 So.2d 848, 854 (Miss.1996); Coplin v. Francis, 631 So.2d 752, 754-55 (Miss.1994); State ex rel. Brazeale v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 321, 323 (Miss.1986). However, in Montgomery, the court, with the following pronouncement, seemed to deviate from its long-standing and bright-line rule that road maintenance and repair implicate a discretionary function:

Ordinarily, where a statute mandates the government or its employees to act, all acts fulfilling that duty are considered mandated as well, and neither the government nor its employees enjoys immunity....
Section 65-1-65 imposes a statutory duty on the highway department to maintain all state highways. Were this the only statutory provision at issue, we would find that the [Mississippi Transportation] Commission is not immune for the acts carrying out that function.

Montgomery, 80 So.3d at 798 (¶ 32) (citations omitted and emphasis added). Here, unlike in Montgomery, no additional statute is involved. Nevertheless, we note that the court in Montgomery did not expressly overrule its prior decisions holding that road maintenance and repair are discretionary functions. We further note that in Mohundro, Coplin, and Lewis, there is no discussion of any statute carving out a portion of the mandated function and making it discretionary, as is the case in Montgomery.

¶ 12. In Lewis, the court held that a clearly ministerial duty may require the exercise of discretion in the discharge of the otherwise ministerial function. Lewis, 498 So.2d at 323. In such a case, the government actor would be immune from suit for injuries arising out of the exercise of his discretion in the discharge of what is otherwise a ministerial function. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that our supreme court did not intend to change existing law regarding its earlier holdings that road maintenance and repair are discretionary functions.

¶ 13. This Court has previously held that MDOT’s failure to remove trees from the highway’s right-of-way fell within the discretionary-function exemption. Farris v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n, 63 So.3d 1241, 1245 (¶ 20) (Miss.Ct.App.2011). In Farris, the plaintiff was injured when a portion of a dead pine tree fell through his windshield and penetrated his lower abdomen. Id. at 1242 (¶ 2). The plaintiff filed suit against MDOT. Id. at (¶ 3). At trial, MDOT moved for a judgment of involuntary dismissal, which the circuit court granted. Id. at (¶ 4). The circuit court determined that because road maintenance is a discretionary function, MDOT was exempt from liability on all of the plaintiffs claims. Id. at (¶ 6). The plaintiff appealed. Id.

¶ 14. On appeal, this Court began by-examining MDOT’s duty under section 65-1-65. Farris, 63 So.3d at 1243 (¶ 10). We concluded that because “[s]ection 65-1-65 does not impose any specific directives as to the time, manner, and conditions for carrying out” its duty to maintain highways, MDOT was required to “use its judgment and discretion in carrying out that duty.” Farris, 63 So.3d at 1244 (¶ 13) (quoting Lee v. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 37 So.3d 73, 77 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2009)) (internal quotations omitted). Additionally, even though MDOT’s Standard Operating Procedures addressed “Timber and Brush Control,” the provisions required the use of judgment and discretion regarding trees within the highways’ rights-of-way. Id. at 124445 (¶¶ 16, 18). Because there was “no statute, rule, regulation, or order” requiring MDOT to inspect every tree located in the highway’s right-of-way, MDOT’s duty to remove trees from the right-of-way was discretionary, and MDOT could not be held liable for the plaintiffs injuries. Id. at 1245 (¶¶ 19-20).

¶ 15. We see no reason to hold differently here. MDOT cannot be held liable for Little’s injuries because maintenance of the highway’s right-of-way is a discretionary function. This issue is without merit.

2. Exclusiveness of the Exemptions

¶ 16. Little argues that even if MDOT is immune under the discretionary-function exemption, it must still demonstrate that it qualifies for immunity under Mississippi Code Annotated section 1146-9(l)(v) (Supp.2011). Essentially, Little urges us to overrule our supreme court’s precedent, as it has stated that “[sjection 11-46-9(l)(v) provides an independent basis for immunity, separate and apart from [sjection 11 — 46—9(l)(d).” Doe, 68 So.3d at 1289 (¶ 14). Hence, if an entity “qualifies for immunity under subsection (d), the conditions for immunity under subsection (v) are irrelevant.” Doe, 68 So.3d at 1289 (¶ 14). If the law is to be changed in this regard, it must be done by our supreme court.

¶ 17. Little also cites to Montgomery for the proposition that immunity under one exemption does not entitle MDOT to complete immunity. However, Little’s reliance on Montgomery is misplaced. In Montgomery, the plaintiff sued the Mississippi Transportation Commission (MTC) after her car hit a pothole on Interstate 55. Montgomery, 80 So.3d at 791 (¶ 2). The plaintiff argued that the MTC had waived its immunity because it failed to warn of a dangerous condition. Id. at 793 (¶ 11). In its motion for summary judgment, the MTC claimed immunity under the MTCA’s discretionary-function exemption. Id. at 794 (¶ 12).

¶ 18. Our supreme court noted that the plaintiff relied solely on section 11-4:6— 9(l)(v) to assert that the MTC was not exempt from liability. Montgomery, 80 So.3d at 797 (¶ 27). However, the court explained that it would not need to “reach [the plaintiffs] argument under [sjection ll-46-9(l)(v) if [it found] that the alleged act or omission was discretionary under [sjection ll-46-9(l)(d).” Montgomery, 80 So.3d at 797 (¶ 27). The court ultimately remanded the case for a determination of whether the duty to warn motorists of potholes was discretionary. Id. at 800 (¶ 42). It did not hold, as Little contends, that a government entity must demonstrate immunity under each exemption listed in section 11-46-9.

¶ 19. Having found that MDOT is exempt from liability pursuant to section 11-46 — 9(l)(d)’s discretionary-function exemption, it is unnecessary for this Court to proceed further. This issue is without merit.

¶ 20. THE JUDGMENT OF THE GEORGE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANTS.

LEE, C.J., GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ., CONCUR. RUSSELL, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. CARLTON, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

      . For purposes of this opinion, we will refer to Little, Pierce, and Sykes collectively as “Little” unless the context requires otherwise.

      . MDOT filed a renewed motion to dismiss on October 15, 2009, which the circuit court denied. After this second denial, MDOT petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court for permission to proceed with an interlocutory appeal. On January 7, 2010, the supreme court denied the petition.

      .Pierce died on April 25, 2010. On August 11, 2010, the executrix of his estate filed a motion for substitution, which the circuit court granted.

      . While the record contains MDOT’s 2004 and 2005 Legislative Budget Requests, the record is devoid of any evidence to demonstrate that highway maintenance and right-of-way maintenance are separate line items in the budget.

      . Section 65-1-65 states:

        It shall be the duty of the state highway commission to have the state highway department maintain all highways which have been or which may be hereafter taken over by the state highway department for maintenance in such a way as to afford convenient, comfortable, and economic use thereof by the public at all times. To this end[,] it shall be the duty of the director, subject to the rules, regulations!,] and orders of the commission as spread on its minutes, to organize an adequate and continuous patrol for the maintenance, repair, and inspection of all of the state-maintained state highway system, so that said highways may be kept under proper maintenance and repair at all times.

      . Section 11-46-9(1 )(v) provides:
      A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim ... [ajrising out of an injury caused by a dangerous condition on property of the governmental entity that was not caused by the negligent or other wrongful conduct of an employee of the governmental entity or of which the governmental entity did not have notice, either actual or constructive, and adequate opportunity to protect or warn against; provided, however, that a governmental entity shall not be liable for the failure to warn of a dangerous condition which is obvious to one exercising due care....


author:
CARLTON, J.,
      RUSSELL, J.,

text:
    JACKSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Appellant v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Appellee.
    No. 2011-CC-00648-COA.
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    Oct. 30, 2012.
    Rehearing Denied April 9, 2013.

      Katherine B. Parker, Angela Elizabeth Broun, attorneys for appellant.
    Albert B. White, Madison, Leanne Franklin Brady, attorneys for appellee.
    Before LEE, C.J., ROBERTS and CARLTON, JJ.
   CARLTON, J.,

for the Court:

¶ 1. The Jackson County Board of Supervisors (Board of Supervisors) appeals the judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court affirming the Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES) Board of Review’s decision that June Seaman was entitled to unemployment benefits. Finding reversible error, we reverse and render.

FACTS

¶ 2. In August 2009, the Board of Supervisors terminated Seaman from her employment for the misconduct of falsifying her time sheets from 2008 through 2009. Before this termination, the Board of Supervisors conducted an internal investigation, where Janet Krebs, the director of human resources for Jackson County, investigated information submitted on Seaman’s time sheets. Krebs determined this information appeared incredible on its face. During this internal investigation by the Board of Supervisors, Krebs interviewed various employees, including Seaman and Seaman’s supervisor, Eddie Russell.

¶ 3. The record reflects Seaman worked full-time for Jackson County as an administrative assistant at the County Civic Center, but she also worked part-time (as needed) as a worker for the Jackson County Fair Association. Jackson County paid Seaman for her work in both positions every two weeks in a single check. Since Seaman worked full-time as an administrative assistant for the Civic Center, she had only after-work hours and weekends to perform her part-time duties for the Fair Association.

¶4. Shortly after her termination, Seaman filed for unemployment benefits with the MDES. The MDES’s claims examiner investigated the matter and found that the Board of Supervisors failed to prove that it terminated Seaman for “misconduct.” The claims examiner then awarded benefits. The Board of Supervisors appealed, and the administrative-law judge (ALJ) held a telephonic hearing.

¶ 5. During the hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from: Seaman; Belinda Lamey, the payroll clerk for Jackson County; Allen Ray Smith, president of the Jackson County Fair Board; Jim Hart, director of the fairgrounds for Jackson County; and Krebs. After the hearing, the ALJ determined that the Board of Supervisors had terminated Seaman for falsifying time sheets.

¶ 6. However, the ALJ found that the Board of Supervisors failed to meet its burden of proving disqualifying conduct under Mississippi Code Annotated section Yl — 5—513(A)(1)(c) (Rev.2011). In that regard, the ALJ’s decision reflected that she disagreed with the Board of Supervisors that Seaman should be terminated for misconduct stemming from falsifying her time sheets, and the ALJ acknowledged Seaman’s years of employment and contributions. The ALJ also found that the Board of Supervisors’ case rested upon speculation, and the ALJ affirmed the decision of the claims examiner awarding benefits to Seaman. The Board of Supervisors appealed to the MDES Board of Review (Board of Review), which affirmed, adopting the ALJ’s findings and opinion.

¶ 7. The Board of Supervisors then appealed to the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Thereafter, Circuit Judge Jerry 0. Terry Sr., who was specially appointed, entered his order affirming the decision of the MDES. The parties filed a “Joint Motion to Amend and Reconsider the Record” in order to admit documents into evidence submitted by the Board of Supervisors at the hearing before the ALJ. Upon this joint motion, the circuit court reconsidered its prior order and again affirmed the decision of the Board of Review.

¶ 8. The Board of Supervisors now appeals, arguing that the decision of the circuit judge affirming the decision of the Board of Review to grant unemployment compensation to Seaman was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. After reviewing the record, we do not find substantial evidence supporting the circuit court’s judgment. Additionally, the decisions of the circuit court and Board of Review were arbitrary and capricious since the evidence in the record clearly supports the Board of Supervisors’ decision to terminate Seaman for misconduct. Finding reversible error, we reverse and render the judgment of the circuit court.

DISCUSSION

¶ 9. The Board of Supervisors argues that the decision of the Board of Review was not supported by substantial evidence, and was therefore arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, the Board of Supervisors argues that the record reveals that the decision that Seaman was not fired for “misconduct” lacked support by substantial evidence. The Board of Supervisors contends that substantial evidence was presented supporting a finding that the Board of Supervisors fired Seaman for very serious misconduct involving the falsification of her hours worked. The Board of Supervisors also argues that if the record reveals that the Board of Review’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, then it necessarily follows that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board of Supervisors asserts that the Board of Review disregarded the evidence in the record of the case. The Board of Supervisors contends that as a result, the Board of Review and circuit court entered arbitrary judgments.

¶ 10. Our limited standard of review for administrative appeals is well established. This Court will not disturb the administrative agency’s findings unless the order of the agency: “1) is not supported by substantial evidence, 2) is arbitrary or capricious, 3) is beyond the scope or power granted to the agency, or 4) violates [the claimant’s constitutional rights.” Tillmon v. Miss. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 996 So.2d 825, 828 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Sprouse v. Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n, 639 So.2d 901, 902 (Miss.1994)). Furthermore, “a rebuttable presumption exists in favor of the administrative agency, and the challenging party has the burden of proving otherwise.” Id.

¶ 11. “Under Mississippi’s Unemployment Compensation Law, a person is disqualified from receiving benefits if he is discharged from employment for misconduct connected with his work.” Hux v. Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n, 749 So.2d 1225, 1227 (¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.1999); see Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(l)(b) (Rev.2011) (“[A]n individual shall be disqualified for [unemployment] benefits ... for misconduct connected with his work if so found by the department.”); see also Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-511 (Rev.2011) (addressing eligibility conditions to receive unemployment benefits). The term “misconduct” has been defined by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Wheeler v. Arriola, 408 So.2d 1381, 1383 (Miss.1982):

The meaning of the term “misconduct,” as used in the unemployment compensation statute, [is] conduct evincing such willful and wanton disregard of the employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employee. Also, carelessness and negligence of such degree, or recurrence thereof, as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, and showing an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer, [come] within the term. Mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, or inadvertences and ordinary negligence in isolated incidents, and good faith errors in judgment or discretion [are] not considered “misconduct” within the meaning of the statute.

Pendleton v. Miss. Dep’t Emp’t Sec., 86 So.3d 284, 285 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Wheeler, 408 So.2d at 1383). The Wheeler court explained that work-connected negligence, in effect, could constitute misconduct when it is “of such degree, or recurrence ... as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent or evil design ... [or] an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations.” Wheeler, 408 So.2d at 1383.

¶ 12. Additionally, the Legslature has placed the burden of proving misconduct on the employer. Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(l)(c) (“The burden of proof of good cause for leaving work shall be on the claimant, and the burden of proof of misconduct shall be on the employer.”). The Mississippi Supreme Court has clarified that the employer bears the burden of showing that the employee’s conduct warrants disqualification from eligbility for benefits by “substantial, clear, and convincing evidence.” Foster v. Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n, 632 So.2d 926, 927 (Miss.1994). The record in this case reflects facts clearly and convincingly establishing Seaman’s misconduct that resulted in her termination. We now turn to review the record relative to our standard of review.

¶ 13. As stated, Seaman held a full-time position requiring forty-hour work weeks for Jackson County at the Civic Center, but Seaman also worked in a part-time capacity, as needed, as a worker for the Fair Association. Jackson County paid Seaman for her work in both positions every two weeks in a single check. Seaman’s time sheets from 2008 through 2009 reflected that she routinely claimed to work thirty to forty hours per week in her part-time job with the Fair Association, in addition to the forty hours per week that she worked for the Civic Center.

¶ 14. Krebs, the human resources director for Jackson County, testified that the human-resources division became suspicious of the number of hours Seaman reported working for the Fair Association, explaining that the division found the number of hours Seaman submitted to be incredible. The ALJ’s order reflects that as a result, in late 2008, Jackson County hired a private investigator to follow Seaman to see if her hours were being recorded accurately. After conducting his investigation, the investigator ultimately noted some possible discrepancies, but the investigator did not reach a firm conclusion that Seaman had falsified her time sheets. The record reflects that the Board of Supervisors took no further action at that time.

¶ 15. Later, however, on July 21, 2009, Krebs again questioned Seaman and other employees, this time inquiring about the signatures on Seaman’s time sheets. Seaman denied falsifying her supervisor’s signature on the time sheet. Krebs suspended Seaman on July 21, 2009, in order to conduct another investigation into the amount of hours Seaman had submitted as well as the signatures on her time sheets, which ultimately led to Seaman’s termination. During this internal investigation, Russell (Seaman’s supervisor) informed Krebs that Seaman had signed Russell’s signature on her (Seaman’s) time sheets.Russell also explained that Seaman asked him to lie about his falsified signature on her time sheet.

¶ 16. Lamey, the county payroll specialist, testified before the ALJ, explaining “[t]here were a couple of times that it didn’t make sense that an employee could work that many hours in any day and also weekends.” Lamey agreed that the number of hours Seaman submitted on her time sheets raised “red flags.”

¶ 17. During the hearing before the ALJ, Allen Smith, president of the Jackson County Fair Board, testified regarding Seaman’s time sheets from the period at issue, 2008 through 2009. The record reflects that Seaman’s time sheet from the period of August 22, 2008, through September 4, 2008, reflected that she worked sixty-nine hours for the Fair Association while also holding a full-time position for the Civic Center, requiring forty-hour work weeks. When questioned about this specific time sheet, Smith stated that during that time period, only minimal work for Seaman existed at the Fair Association, “five to ten hours at the max.” Smith testified that by his estimations, Seaman’s pre-fair work hours for the months of August, September, and October should amount to twenty to thirty hours total for all three months combined. Smith further explained that Seaman’s hours for the month of August could be as few as five to ten hours for a two-week pay period. Smith testified that in November, Seaman’s hours may increase to fifteen to twenty hours for a pay period. He also estimated that her hours during the months of January, February, and March should amount to fifteen to twenty hours' total for all three months, with only five to ten hours of work for the month of April. Smith testified that Seaman’s position would not require her to work any hours during the months of December, May, June, or July.

¶ 18. As stated, the time sheets reasonably raised the attention of the Board of Supervisors due to the enormity of hours Seaman claimed she worked at the Fair Association while still employed in a full-time capacity at the Civic Center, in light of the normal amount of hours required to fulfill her job at the Fair Association.

¶ 19. Regarding the falsification of the signatures on her time sheets, Seaman testified in the telephonic hearing before the ALJ that she was given permission by her supervisor, Russell, to sign his name to her time sheets. However, Seaman later admitted to the ALJ that she never checked with Russell about the amount of hours she worked. Further, Krebs testified before the ALJ that during her investigation into the matter for the Board of Supervisors, Russell informed her that he did not sign Seaman’s time sheets or approve her hours as accurate. Krebs testified that during her internal inquiry before terminating Seaman, Russell explained that Seaman asked him to lie to corroborate her story that he signed her time sheets. Our review of the record also shows that Seaman acknowledged receipt of the Jackson County employee handbook, and that the handbook contains a provision stating that falsifying time sheets or records constitutes a terminal offense. Precedent also recognizes that the falsification of time sheets may constitute misconduct supporting termination. See Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n v. Percy, 641 So.2d 1172, 1174-75 (Miss.1994).

¶ 20. In Percy, 641 So.2d at 1175, Joann Percy was similarly terminated for signing her supervisor’s initials to her time card. Like the case before us, the supreme court acknowledged that Percy’s actions “were not the result of a ‘one-time’ oversight, but comprised a continued practice for a period covering six weeks.” Id. The supreme court held that Percy’s falsification of her time cards “was an intentional attempt to receive a paycheck” while avoiding the verification of the hours she actually worked. Id. at 1176. Recognizing that our supreme court has found that the “falsification of ... time cards constitute^] misconduct,” we find that Seaman’s actions of falsifying her time sheets indeed constitute misconduct. Id.

¶ 21. After reviewing the record, we find the record lacks substantial evidence to support the Board of Review’s decision. As stated, the findings below must be supported by substantial evidence. Tillmon, 996 So.2d at 828 (¶ 9). We find that the Board of Review arbitrarily found that the Board of Supervisors’ termination of Seaman was based upon speculation, since the testimony in the record shows that the Board of Supervisors based its decision upon the following clear and convincing facts and evidence: Seaman’s time sheets reflecting an incredible and improbable number of hours worked by Seaman in her part-time job in light of her full-time employment elsewhere; Russell’s statement to Krebs that Seaman asked him to lie about her time sheet; the employee handbook’s definition of terminal offenses; and Seaman’s admission to the ALJ that she never checked with her supervisor regarding the number of hours she submitted on her time sheets. The improbable amount of hours reflected on her time sheets, on its face, provides evidence supporting Seaman’s termination for misconduct, and, as noted above, the record shows Seaman asked her supervisor to lie to corroborate her false testimony that he approved her time sheets. See Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n v. Claiborne, 872 So.2d 698, 700 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (stating that the actual facts surrounding the termination control whether the employee was terminated for misconduct). The evidence, taken together, amounts to clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination of Seaman for misconduct by the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the Board of Review and circuit court arbitrarily and erroneously found that the Board of Supervisors based its decision to terminate Seaman’s employment on speculation and mere circumstantial evidence. See generally McAdory v. McAdory, 608 So.2d 695, 699 (Miss.1992) (Circumstantial evidence may indeed rise to the level of clear and convincing. A party seeking a divorce on the ground of adultery must prove the elements of the offending conduct by clear and convincing evidence; however, the party may rely on circumstantial evidence as proof of his allegations.).

¶ 22. As acknowledged, the ALJ, Board of Review, and the circuit court found that Seaman’s actions were not misconduct, stating in their respective orders that the Board of Supervisors based its termination of Seaman on speculation and circumstantial evidence. However, the record contains direct evidence that Seaman’s actions were misconduct, including the time sheets reflecting improbable hours as well as testimony of Seaman’s supervisor that Seaman asked him to lie to corroborate her story about her time sheets. See Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n v. Harris, 672 So.2d 739, 743 (Miss.1996) (finding a teacher’s action of showing an R-rated movie constituted misconduct and reversing the circuit court’s award of unemployment benefits).

¶ 23. The record thus fails to support the decision of the Board of Review or the circuit court that Seaman’s actions failed to constitute misconduct. Rather, the evidence in the record clearly and convincingly reflects substantial evidence supporting Seaman’s termination for misconduct. Johnson v. Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n, 761 So.2d 861, 866-67 (¶¶ 19-22) (Miss.2000). Therefore, the Board of Review and circuit court arbitrarily and capriciously found Seaman’s termination for misconduct was based on mere speculation. Accordingly, we reverse and render the circuit court’s judgment.

¶ 24. THE JUDGMENT OF THE JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED AND RENDERED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLEE.

LEE, C.J., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ„ CONCUR. RUSSELL, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., AND FAIR, J.

RUSSELL, J.,

dissenting:

¶ 25. The MDES claims examiner, the administrative law judge (ALJ), ■ the MDES Board of Review, and the circuit court all determined that Seaman was entitled to unemployment benefits because her employer failed to prove that she did not work the hours submitted or that she falsified her work hours. The majority reverses the circuit court’s decision, finding that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that it was arbitrary and capricious. I disagree. I believe the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary and capricious; therefore, I would affirm.

¶ 26. “The restricted standard of review for administrative appeals is well established.” Nevels v. Miss. Dep’t Emp’t Sec., 39 So.3d 995, 997 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (emphasis added). “Absent any fraud, this Court and the circuit court are bound by the Board [of Reviewj’s findings of fact, assuming there is substantial evidence supporting such.” Id. (citing Miss. Emp’t Sec. Comm’n v. PDN, Inc., 586 So.2d 838, 840 (Miss.1991)). “The conclusions of an administrative agency will remain undisturbed unless the agency’s order is: (1) not supported by the evidence, (2) arbitrary or capricious, (3) beyond the scope or power granted to the agency, or (4) in violation of the complaining party’s statutory or constitutional rights.” Id. (citing Miss. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec. v. Good Samaritan Pers. Servs., 996 So.2d 809, 812 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2008)). “On appeal, a rebut-table presumption exists in favor of the administrative agency, and the challenging party has the burden of proving otherwise.” Id.

¶ 27. The issue on appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the MDES’s decision that Seaman was not guilty of misconduct or whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious. In this case, the claims examiner found that the employer failed to prove that Seaman was discharged for misconduct. Therefore, it awarded benefits. The employer appealed to the ALJ, who also found that the employer failed to prove misconduct. The ALJ found that the employer’s case was based on speculation and affirmed the decision of the claims examiner awarding Seaman benefits. The ALJ entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, which stated, in relevant part, as follows:

[Seaman] worked directly for the county government of Jackson County from October 2, 2000, until August 27, 2009. She worked full-time as an [ajdministra-tive [ajssistant at the County Civic Center under Jim Hart, who is director of the Jackson [Fairgrounds]. [Seaman] also worked for the Jackson Fair Association, which is a quasi-governmental body associated with the county. [Seaman] reported the pay excepted for her time worked for the Fair Association on her time card she turned in to the Civic Center. Eddie Russell, [president of the Fair Association, usually signed off on the hours she worked for the Fair Association. Jim Hart usually sign[ed] off on the hours she worked for the Civic Center.
Human Resources became suspicious of the number of hours [Seaman] reported as worked for the Fair Association. At first[,] the county took no action. In late 2008, the county hired a private investigator to follow [Seaman] to see if her hours were being recorded accurately. The investigator noted some possible discrepancies but did not reach a firm conclusion that she had falsified her hours worked.
On July 21, 2009, [Seaman] was called by Janet Krebs, [director of [hjuman [resources. Ms. Krebs questioned [Seaman] regarding signatures on her time sheets. [Seaman] denied that she had falsified the signatures on the time sheet handed to her. Ms. Krebs suspended [Seaman] on July 21, 2009, with pay, to conduct an investigation. [Seaman] was terminated by the county on August 27, 2009.
The employer’s attorney called several witnesses in this case.
The first was Beli [Lamey], a payroll clerk for the County. Ms. [Lamey] testified as to the format of [Seaman’s] time sheets and whether there were any inconsistencies. She stated that [Seaman] regularly turned in time sheets totaling about 80 hours worked over the two weeks.
The second witness was Alan Smith, [d]irector of the Jackson Fair Board. He testified as to what [Seaman’s] duties to the Fair Board entailed, and that he did not believe that [Seaman] could have actually work[ed] 30-40 hours a week to set up a week long annual fair. The [ALJ] notes that he, himself, has not actually performed [Seaman’s] job duties. [Seaman] seems to have done the bulk of the coordinating for the annual fall fair for well over a decade. It seems to the ALJ that she would be the best witness to what her duties would entail, whereas Mr. Smith’s testimony is mostly speculative. It is possible [Seaman] is set in her ways and did not use technology effective[ly][or] efficiently in her duties. Inefficiency is a very different matter from purposely turning in falsified time sheets.
The third witness was Mr. John Hart, [d]irector of the [f]air[g]rounds. He testified that some of [Seaman’s] duties to the Civic Center and the Fair Board overlapped and that she had been hired with the understanding that she could complete tasks for the Fair Board in her extra time in his employ. However, [Seaman] testified that her duties solely for him regularly came to 40 hours a week, and therefore, she did not have time to complete tasks for the Fair Board.
Finally, the last employer witness was Janet Krebs, [d]irector of [h]uman [resources. She testified that there had been an investigation by handwriting experts of the signatures on [Seaman’s] time cards, and not all of the cards had been signed by Mr. Hart or Mr. Russell. The employer did not submit a copy of the handwriting analysis. [Seaman] also testified that she sometimes signed her time cards when her supervisors were not available at the right time, but she had always done so with permission, and she had never submitted hours without their knowledge.
The employer also submitted documentary evidence of many time cards going back over a year of employment. The [ALJ] [finds] that they are very consistent in the hours submitted. However, the [ALJ] finds this to be circumstantial evidence of wrong[-]doing at [best]. Consistent hours may also be indicative of someone who is methodical and knows how long tasks will take. Again, [Seaman] seems to have submitted similar hours worked for many years. The County even had a private investigator follow [Seaman] during the winter of 2008-2009 to observe [Seaman’s] hours. The results of the investigation were submitted by both sides. The private investigator concluded that the investigation did not reveal substantial evidence of fraudulent time[ ]keeping on [Seaman’s] part.
The ALJ concludes that the County’s case is mostly based on speculation as to whether her work for the [fair] truly took as much time as she submitted. That is not enough to be substantial evidence of wrong[-]doing. There is also the dispute as to whether her supervisor always actually signed her time sheets, or whether they allowed her to sign in their place sometimes. The ALJ notes that the time sheets are so consistent, the number of hours she submitted could have hardly come to a surprise to her supervisors. [Seaman] clearly and consistently testified that she believed she had been submitting] her time sheets properly.
[Seaman] may have been inefficient, and the County is certainly [within] its rights to find someone who can perform duties in less time.

(Emphasis added).

¶ 28. After the ALJ entered her opinion, the employer appealed to the Board of Review, which affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereafter, the employer appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the decision of the Board of Review awarding benefits. The circuit court’s order reads in relevant part:

The [c]ourt has now reviewed eighty [pages of time sheets] and finds that without some explanation as to how they alone meet the burden of proof required to meet the charges of ‘stealing, embezzlement, dishonesty, falsification of records[,] or willful misrepresentation of facts[,]’ these time sheets speak for themselves since some are signed by her supervisors and not disputed as to their accuracy, except curious suspicion that nobody is so dedicated as to work nearly eighty hours a week In this case[,] an investigator was hired to follow [Seaman] but found nothing to refute her statement. It could be said that she needed the money and ... was holding down two (2) jobs[,] and the time sheets indicate the time to be for a combination of two (2) jobs.
[Seaman] gives a first hand description of job duties and an acceptable explanation of her time sheets before being somewhat cut off by the ALJ[.]
The [c]ourt has carefully reviewed the case history[,] including the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the [ALJ], after a full hearing on the record, and finds that the decision was and is supported by credible evidence. A fair and reasonable interpretation of the direct testimony[] evidences that [Seaman] was a valued and trusted employee. She worked without a great deal of supervision and for a long period of time [she] performed her various duties at home long after normal work hours. She was allowed to keep her own time and although her supervisor denied that the signature on her time sheet was his signature, he did not dispute that he had on occasions allowed her to sign his name to documents. [Seaman] denied that she falsified any records of her time worked and admitted that on occasions she would sign her supervisor[’]s name but[ ] only[] when authorized to do so. Although suspicious circumstances may have arisen in the minds of some to cause a private investigator to be hired to surreptitiously follow [Seaman] and gather any information to prove her dishonesty[,] the result of the investigation revealed only possible discrepancies but no conclusion that she had falsified hours worked.
The [e]ourt finds, as did the ALJ, that the Countfy’s] case is based upon surmise speculation and conjecture that Seaman[’]s work duties did not require as much time as she submitted. Such basis is never sufficient to establish a required element of wrong[ ]doing or fraudulent timekeeping - on the claimant[’]s part.

(Emphasis added).

¶ 29. After the circuit court affirmed, the employer appealed to this Court. After four different entities determined that Seaman’s employer failed to prove misconduct, the majority decides that they all got it wrong. I agree with the claims examiner, the ALJ, the Board of Review, and the circuit court that the employer failed to prove misconduct. The employer’s case was based on speculation at best. As already noted, Seaman did not have to prove anything; instead, the employer had the duty to prove Seaman’s misconduct by substantial evidence. See Miss. Dep’t Emp’t Sec. v. Clark, 13 So.3d 866, 872 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (noting that it is “the employer that [bears] the burden of showing that the employee’s conduct warranted disqualification from eligibility for benefits by substantial, clear and convincing evidence”). The employer simply failed to prove that Seaman did not work the hours she submitted on her time sheets. Further, the hours Seaman submitted were not unreasonable. Working two jobs, totaling sixty to eighty hours each week, is not an impossible task. Moreover, neither Smith nor Hart ever worked as a member of the Fair Association; therefore, they would not have personal knowledge as to what Seaman’s fair duties were or how many hours it would take to perform these duties.

¶ 30. I also note that Seaman’s supervisor, Eddie Russell, did not testify at the telephonic hearing before the ALJ. If anyone would know what Seaman’s fair duties entailed or the hours she worked, it would have been Russell. Russell never testified that Seaman improperly signed his name on Seaman’s time sheets or that he did not give her permission to sign his name. Such an allegation was merely speculation on the employer’s part..

¶ 31. Further, the private investigator hired by the agency did not find any misconduct. Surely, if Seaman was falsifying her work hours, the private investigator would have discovered such misconduct after following Seaman in 2008. Finally, the handwriting expert’s findings were never admitted as an exhibit even though Lamey testified that it was these findings that ultimately led to Seaman’s termination. In sum, Seaman’s employer failed to prove that Seaman was guilty of misconduct rendering her ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. While there may be some evidence to suggest misconduct by Seaman, there is also substantial evidence that she was not guilty of misconduct. While the majority might have found differently, this Court “cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency or reweigh the facts of the case.” CLC of Biloxi, LLC v. Miss. Dep’t of Health, 91 So.3d 633, 635 (¶ 6) (Miss.2012).

¶ 32. For the above reasons, I would find that the Board of Review’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the circuit court, which affirmed the Board of Review’s decision to grant Seaman unemployment benefits.

IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., AND FAIR, J„ JOIN THIS OPINION.

      . Jackson County asserts that Seaman worked full-time for Jackson County at the County Civic Center but also worked part-time as needed as a worker for the Jackson County Fair Association.

      . Seaman’s testimony before the ALJ reflects that the Fair Association employed her for twenty-six years, but she changed positions over the years.

      . See Tillmon v. Miss. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 996 So.2d 825, 828 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2008).

      . See URCCC 5.03 (standard of review for reviewing the order or judgment of an administrative agency).

      . See Miss.Code Ann. § 71-5-525 (Rev.2011) (outlining the procedure for the appeal of claims).

      . Austin v. Miss. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 976 So.2d 969, 971 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2008).

      . Seaman's testimony before the ALJ reflects that the Fair Association employed her for twenty-six years, but she changed positions over the years.

      .This second investigation occurred nearly a year after the Board of Supervisors hired a private investigator to investigate whether Seaman accurately recorded the hours on her time sheet.

      . The record reflects that Seaman worked forty hours per week for the Civic Center in a full-time capacity.