Harris v. Harris, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CA-01570-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-18-2003
Opinion Author: Irving, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Parties’ intent - Restraint on alienation
Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): McMillin, C.J.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-19-2001
Appealed from: Union County Chancery Court
Judge: Charles D. Thomas
Disposition: DISMISSED COMPLAINT ON MOTION OF APPELLEES
Case Number: 2000-316

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: In the Matter of the Estate of Walter Harris: Q. C. (Quincy Curtis) Harris, Monzola Harris and Barbara Harris




REGAN S. RUSSELL



 

Appellee: Clinton Harris, Verleyria Harris Harrell, and Barbara Harris Marion THAD J. MUELLER  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Contract - Parties’ intent - Restraint on alienation

Summary of the Facts: Quincy Harris filed a complaint against Clinton Harris, Verleyria Harris Harrell, Barbara Harris Marion, Monzala Harris, and Barbara Harris, seeking a determination of the heirs of Walter Harris and Vaughn Harris, a partition of certain land owned by the Estate of Walter Harris, and an accounting for rents from Clinton Harris. Clinton Harris, Verleyria Harris Harrell and Barbara Harris Marion countered with an answer and motion to dismiss in which they affirmatively asserted that the relief sought was barred by an agreement executed by Quincy, Monzola, Barbara, and the Harrises in 1977. The court granted their motion to dismiss. Quincy, joined by Monzola and Barbara Harris, appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Intent Quincy argues that the inclusion of the words “at this time” in the agreement shows the parties’ intent to forego division of the subject property at the time of execution of the contract only, not for the duration of Clinton’s life. Contract interpretation requires the court to look to the language that the parties used in expressing their agreement. If the contract is unclear or ambiguous, the court should attempt to harmonize the provisions in accord with the parties' apparent intent. If the court is unable to translate a clear understanding of the parties' intent, the court should apply the discretionary "canons" of contract construction. If the contract continues to evade clarity as to the parties' intent, the court should consider extrinsic or parol evidence. Here, the intention of the parties to the agreement was to address the possession, use, and control of the real property owned by Walter at the time of his death since his estate had not been administered. The parties agreed that there would be no division of the property "at this time." They did not specify when they would be agreeable to divide the property or whether a single party might assert individually, at some later time, his or her right to have the property divided. Because it is clear that the parties desired to keep the home place intact for some extended period of time, the court erred in finding that the parties intended to give Clinton a life estate in the property. Issue 2: Restraint on alienation Quincy argues that the agreement confers an indefinite restraint on his ability, and the ability of other signatories to the agreement, to sell or divide their property and is therefore void as constituting an unreasonable restraint in its scope. Reasonable restraints of alienation are permissible under Mississippi law. The limitation, as interpreted by the court, on Quincy's right to alienate his interest in the property is reasonable. Although Monzola and Barbara did not sign or ratify the contract, Vaughn, Monzola’s husband and Barbara’s father, signed the agreement. As successors-in-interest to the property, they are bound by the terms of the agreement just as Vaughn would have been had he been still alive.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court