Former Hinds County Supervisor Joe Lauderdale has spent most of his life believing in property rights. Now he's not so sure.
Lauderdale and his son own a commercial building on East Rankin Street in Jackson. A few years ago they leased the building to a man who operated an automobile paint and body shop. The arrangement started out fine. The tenant paid rent and operated his business.
Then the rent stopped.
According to Lauderdale, the lease expired in June 2024 and was not renewed because the tenant had fallen behind on rent payments. Lauderdale figured the matter would soon resolve itself. Surely a tenant who no longer had a lease and wasn't paying rent would simply move out.
He was wrong. Nearly two years later, the tenant is still there.
In the meantime, Lauderdale estimates the unpaid rent has grown to more than $20,000. He says repeated requests to leave were ignored. Written notices were ignored. Court proceedings have dragged on for months. Appeals have added more delays. Meanwhile, the tenant continues operating his business from Lauderdale's building.
"It's just ridiculous," Lauderdale told me.
Many readers will instinctively side with Lauderdale. After all, if you own a building and the lease has expired, shouldn't you be able to take possession of your own property?
The answer, legally speaking, is more complicated than most people realize.
Mississippi law generally does not allow landlords to simply throw someone out, change the locks and call it a day. The law strongly discourages what lawyers call "self-help" evictions. Instead, landlords are expected to follow a formal court process.
The reasoning is understandable. Courts want disputes settled peacefully and legally. Judges want an opportunity to hear both sides before someone loses possession of a home or business.
But there is another side to the equation. What happens when the legal process moves so slowly that it effectively rewards delay? That’s Lauderdale's complaint.
He says he followed the rules. Notices were posted. The matter was filed in Justice Court. Hearings were scheduled. Delays occurred. Eventually the court ruled in favor of Lauderdale's company and ordered the tenant removed.
The tenant appealed the Justice Court ruling to County Court. According to Lauderdale, the next available hearing date could be months away.
So the tenant remains in possession of the building while the property owner waits.
Whether every detail ultimately plays out exactly as Lauderdale expects is beside the point. The larger issue is that many property owners hear stories like this and begin asking themselves a troubling question:
Why invest in property if it takes years to regain possession when a tenant stops paying?
That question should concern Jackson city leaders. Everybody wants to attract investors. We hear discussions about revitalizing neighborhoods and bringing businesses back into the city. Those are worthy goals. But economic development starts with protecting property rights.
No investor wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing commercial property only to discover that removing a nonpaying occupant requires years of litigation and tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
The reality is that capital goes where it feels welcome. If investors believe Madison County offers a more efficient legal environment than Hinds County, money will flow to Madison County.
If investors believe Rankin County offers quicker resolution of disputes, money will flow to Rankin County. Capital is mobile. Investors have choices.
And property owners talk to one another.
Lauderdale says this experience has made him think twice about investing additional money in Hinds County real estate. One investor's opinion may not matter much. But when enough investors begin reaching the same conclusion, local governments should pay attention.
To be fair, courts face difficult challenges.
Judges must protect due process. Not every landlord is right. Not every tenant is wrong. Some eviction cases involve legitimate disputes over repairs, maintenance, lease terms or other legal issues.
But there is a difference between due process and endless process. The law should protect both property rights and fairness.
A system that allows someone to remain in possession indefinitely through procedural delays risks undermining confidence in the entire process.
Perhaps Mississippi lawmakers should examine whether commercial eviction cases deserve a faster track.
Some states require tenants appealing eviction judgments to continue paying rent into court while the appeal is pending. Others provide expedited hearings when lease expiration is undisputed. Such measures preserve due process while discouraging delay tactics.
Those ideas may deserve consideration in Mississippi. Because at the end of the day, Joe Lauderdale's story is not really about one tenant, one building or one lawsuit. It is about something bigger.
Property rights are among the oldest rights recognized under American law. The ability to own property, lease property and regain possession of property has always been fundamental to a free-market economy.
When a man can stop paying rent, lose in court, appeal the decision and continue operating his business rent-free while the owner waits months for another hearing, something feels out of balance.
Maybe the courts will eventually sort it out. Maybe the tenant will eventually leave. Maybe Lauderdale will eventually recover his building. But his experience raises a question Mississippi lawmakers ought to consider.
If a property owner cannot regain possession of his own building after years of nonpayment and litigation, who really owns the property?
