Wheat v. Lindsley
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-02134-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-02134-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Agency relationship - Joint venture Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Griffis, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-09-2002 Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr. Disposition: APPELLANT AWARDED JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,266.02. Case Number: 98-0412-D |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Debbie Wheat |
KIM T. CHAZE |
||
| Appellee: | Pamela Lindsley | JACK W. LAND JOE D. STEVENS |
|
|
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: | Agency relationship - Joint venture |
| Summary of the Facts: | Pamela Lindsley, at the suggestion of Debbie Wheat, a real estate agent, purchased two lots in a development area called Fieldstone. It was the parties' intention that these two lots be purchased by Lindsley and a “spec” house constructed on each lot. The houses would then be sold for a profit. At Wheat's suggestion, Lindsley transferred title in the lots to Wheat. After things began to go wrong, Lindsley filed a petition for accounting of funds and other relief against Wheat. She subsequently filed an amended petition for damages for breach of contract, cancellation of contract, accounting of funds, permanent injunction and other relief. Wheat filed her answer and counterclaimed for specific performance and injunctive relief, an accounting, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The court bifurcated the causes of action and rendered decisions on two issues: the contractual relationship which existed between Wheat and Lindsley and the amount of money owing between the two parties. The court found that the relationship between Wheat and Lindsley was that of principal and agent with Lindsley being the principal and Wheat as her real estate agent. The court also found that Wheat was in a fiduciary relationship with Lindsley. The court found that Lindsley was entitled to a monetary judgment against Wheat in the amount of $91,266.02 plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. Wheat appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Wheat argues that the chancellor’s ruling was against the weight of the evidence because Lindsley admitted that a joint venture existed between them, the parties maintained a joint bank account to which each had access, Lindsley voluntarily deeded both lots to her in order to obtain loans and benefits from the bank, and they previously shared profits from properties they sold in the past. A joint venture exists when two or more persons combine in a joint business enterprise for their mutual benefit with an understanding that they are to share in profits or losses and each to have a voice in its management. On the other hand, an agency relationship between broker and owner is personal and fiduciary. Real estate brokers have a duty to act solely for the benefit of their principals in all matters connected with the agency, and any breach by agent of his duty of good faith to principal, whereby principal suffers any disadvantage and agent reaps any benefit, is fraud. Here, there was no express agreement between Lindsley and Wheat, although both acknowledge the existence of an oral agreement to buy and sell properties. Wheat was noted on the listing agreements for the properties to receive a 6% commission if those properties sold. While Lindsley and Wheat had access to a joint banking account for construction expenditures, all money deposited or withdrawn by either party originated from personal funds of Lindsley or from loans acquired from her properties being used as collateral. Wheat contributed no personal funds to the account. In their past transactions, the only money received by Wheat was the standard sales commission and Lindsley and Wheat never actually engaged in a division of profits realized from any of their past transactions. Therefore, the chancellor did not err in finding that the parties were engaged in a business relationship whereby Lindsley was the owner/principal and Wheat was her agent. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
