Check Cashers Express, Inc. v. Crowell
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01631-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-20-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Trade fixtures - Damages - Attorney’s fees - M.R.A.P. 38 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-10-2005 Appealed from: PANOLA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr. Disposition: JUDGMENT AWARDING BOYCE CROWELL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES. Case Number: B-04-08-361 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CHECK CASHERS EXPRESS, INC., TITLE LOANS
EXPRESS, INC. AND ROBERT J. POPE, JR. |
ROBERT BINNION ANDREWS |
||
| Appellee: | BOYCE CROWELL | JAMES ANDREW YELTON |
|
|
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 - Trade fixtures - Damages - Attorney’s fees - M.R.A.P. 38 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Boyce Crowell filed a complaint against Check Cashers Express, Inc., Title Loans Express, Inc. and Robert J. Pope, Jr., claiming breach of contract on a lease and conversion. This lawsuit arose when the tenants dismantled walls and interior doors and windows from within the leased building when the lease expired and dismantled and took an air conditioning unit which they had bought and installed. After trial, a judgment was entered against the tenants in the amount of $23,572.67, including $5,893.17 in attorney’s fees. The tenants appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Fixtures The tenants argue that the court applied an incorrect standard of law in deeming, in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the partition walls they had added to the building were fixtures. The basis of this argument is the unwritten agreement the tenants claimed they had with the original owner of the building that they had permission to add and remove the walls and other items. The general rule in Mississippi is that once a tenant has affixed an item to the premises, it becomes part of the realty. However, when applied to landlords and tenants, especially in a commercial setting when tenants have built structures on the land during their tenancy, the general rule is applied with leniency in favor of the tenants. Furthermore, trade fixtures, those placed on the premises by the tenant for the purpose of trade or manufacture and not intended to irrevocably become a part of the realty, are generally considered personal property of the tenant/lessee. In this case, there was a lease expressly prohibiting alterations or damage and removal of items on the premises, and no written agreement to the contrary, regardless of whether the tenants had an oral side-agreement with the initial landlord. In addition, when the walls and other items were removed by the tenants, there was substantial damage to the premises. The tenants were expressly prohibited from removing their additions by a letter from Crowell’s lawyer, and the lease states it “supercedes any oral or written agreements regarding these premises.” Thus, there was substantial evidence for the chancellor to rule that the partition walls were fixtures and became part of the realty. Issue 2: Damages The tenants argue the damage done to the building was minor and that Crowell did not mitigate his damages by repairing the damage, but instead replaced materials. They also argue that the award of attorney’s fees was unwarranted. The measure of damages for breach of contract and property damage can be either the reasonable cost of replacement or repairs, or diminution in value. The chancellor awarded Crowell $17,679.50 in compensatory damages and $5,893.17 in attorney’s fees. The amounts awarded by the chancellor for compensatory damages were proved with reasonable certainty. The chancellor found the damages were mitigated because Mr. and Mrs. Crowell completed some of the manual repair work on the building themselves. The chancery court properly found that the air conditioning unit had become a fixture, and the cost of an air conditioning system was properly included in the compensatory damages. Attorney’s fees may be awarded in a contract case where provided for by the contract, by statutory authority, or where punitive damages are also proper. While the chancellor erred in relying on the lease provision as authority for attorney’s fees in this case, it was proper for the chancellor to award attorney’s fees in lieu of punitive damages. Because the landlord was prosecuting rather than defending the action, the plain terms of the lease do not authorize an award of attorney’s fees. The chancellor’s finding of malice on the part of the tenants is supported by the record and is a sufficient basis for the award of attorney’s fees in lieu of punitive damages. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees on appeal Crowell asks that he be awarded attorney’s fees on appeal. While the Court has authority to award damages, including attorney’s fees, for frivolous appeals pursuant to M.R.A.P. 38, there is nothing frivolous about the tenants’ appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
