Milligan v. Milligan, et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01413-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-15-2007
Opinion Author: BARNES, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Involuntary dismissal - Legal status of business - Ownership interest - Chain of title - Damages - M.R.C.P. 56(e)
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-13-2005
Appealed from: TISHOMINGO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Jaqueline Mask
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS REGARDING CLAIM FOR DAMAGES; INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF TIMOTHY MILLIGAN’S CLAIMS FOR ONEHALF ASSETS AND PROPERTY OF MILLIGAN’S READY MIX, INC. OR MILLIGAN BROTHERS READY MIX, INC.
Case Number: 2001-259

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: TIMOTHY MILLIGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF JACKIE R. MILLIGAN




BRIAN H. NEELY



 

Appellee: Mary V. Milligan, Individually and as Trustee of the Jackie R. Milligan Testamentary Trust and Milligan's Ready Mix, Inc. and Kelly Kirk Milligan MARY V. MILLIGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE JACKIE R. MILLIGAN TESTAMENTARY TRUST AND MILLIGAN’S READY MIX, INC. AND KELLY KIRK MILLIGAN MICHAEL DALE COOKE  

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 - Involuntary dismissal - Legal status of business - Ownership interest - Chain of title - Damages - M.R.C.P. 56(e)

Summary of the Facts: Timothy Milligan filed a complaint against Mary Milligan, individually and as trustee of Jackie Milligan’s estate, and Milligan’s Ready Mix, Inc. Timothy complained of storage by MRM of large concrete products on approximately a one-half acre portion of his property. Timothy also complained of the encroachment onto his property of a metal building owned by MRM. Timothy ultimately filed a second amended complaint, expanding his claims to include a one-half ownership interest in MRM’s property and business. Additionally, he added another defendant, his uncle, Kelly Kirk Milligan, who currently operates the business. Milligan’s Ready Mix, Inc. and Kelly made a counterclaim seeking Timothy’s parcel of land by adverse possession, noting the concrete products and metal garage had been on this property for over ten years. Milligan’s Ready Mix, Inc. and Kelly filed a motion for partial summary judgment which was granted in part. The chancellor stated there was no genuine issue of material fact for the following claims: $2 million in damages or for any other amount against Milligan’s Ready Mix, Inc. and Kelly, $2,000 per month rent on the disputed property, and any damages to Timothy’s property by MRM or Kelly. The chancellor excepted, however, any potential claim to damages of Timothy’s property by the adverse use by Milligan’s Ready Mix, Inc. The chancellor denied summary judgment as to Timothy’s claim to one-half of the assets of Milligan’s Ready Mix, Inc. and the defendants’ counterclaim of adverse possession on the portion of the metal building that allegedly encroached on Timothy’s property. Following a trial, the chancellor granted defendant Mary’s oral motion for an involuntary dismissal against her as trustee. The remaining two defendants then moved for an involuntary dismissal regarding Timothy’s claim to one-half interest in Milligan’s Ready Mix, Inc., which the chancellor granted. Thus the only remaining claim for adjudication was the defendants’ adverse possession counterclaim against Timothy. After hearing testimony, the chancellor dismissed the adverse possession claim. Timothy appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Involuntary dismissal Timothy argues that the court made insufficient findings of fact upon which to base its involuntary dismissal. The lack of evidence presented by Timothy during the bench trial to prove his right to relief justifies the dismissal. Timothy acknowledges in a deposition that he could produce no witnesses or documents which would establish that Jackie owned a one-half interest in the business at the time of his death. Timothy also explained that the reason he initiated this action was because the annual payments of $10,000 from MRM suddenly stopped in 2000, and he was under the impression these payments were disbursements for his father’s ongoing share of the business profits. Further, he stated in a deposition that he felt as Jackie’s heir that he was due part of the $500,000 reported every year on MRM’s tax returns. Yet, Timothy had no documents or witnesses to substantiate this claim. At the bench trial, Timothy rested without putting forth any further evidence to prove his claim of a one-half ownership interest in the business. Kelly, testifying as an adverse witness for Timothy, stated that Jackie had “sold out” his interest in the business in 1986. Timothy provided no evidence to disprove this statement. Timothy failed to make a case for relief regarding his claim for any ownership interest in the business or its property. Timothy has been paid for Jackie’s sale of his interest in the business. Whether Jackie sold his interest in MRM is an issue of fact which the chancery court already ruled upon in the affirmative. Thus the court did not err in issuing an involuntary dismissal in favor of the defendants regarding whether Timothy was a partial owner of the business or real property upon which MRM is situated. Issue 2: Legal status of business Timothy argues that the court erred in failing to determine if the business was a sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation, and therefore, it was impossible for the court to determine who owned the business and its assets. The court did not err in adjudicating the matter of Timothy’s potential ownership without determining the exact legal status of the business. Timothy failed to establish a prima facie case for his claim to ownership. The court found the business was valid and not a “sham corporation.” If Timothy had been able to provide some evidence to prove his ownership claim, it may have been necessary for the chancellor to determine specifically what type of business MRM was at the time of Jackie’s death. However, the “cloud of doubt” regarding the family business’s ownership and structure was not lifted because of the failure of Timothy to state a claim for relief. Issue 3: Ownership interest Timothy argues that the chancellor is in error for failing to specify Jackie’s ownership interest in MRM at the time of his death. Timothy did not present any evidence contradicting the defendants’ claim that Jackie did not retain any ownership interest. Because Timothy failed to present evidence for his prima facie case for ownership interest in MRM before the trial court, this issue is moot. Issue 4: Chain of title Timothy argues that the court completely ignored the chain of title regarding ownership to the real property. Once again, Timothy fails to offer any documentation in support thereof. Furthermore, this issue is moot because the chancellor found Timothy did not retain any ownership interest in the real property MRM is situated upon. Issue 5: Damages There is no evidence to substantiate Timothy’s claims to either $2 million in damages or $2,000 per month in rent for the use of his property by MRM. As the trial court notes in its order, in Timothy’s depositions he gives a vague rationale for these two figures. Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 56(e), in a motion for summary judgment the non-moving party may not rest on mere denials in pleadings, but must present some evidence of a genuine issue of material fact. Timothy presents no evidence to justify his claims to $2 million or $2,000 per month in damages. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding damages. The trial court found $2,000 per month compensation for use of Timothy’s property by MRM was not a genuine issue of material fact because Timothy did not present any evidence explaining from where he derived this figure. If the trial court finds no issue of material fact over a specific claim for damages, it is not the court’s duty to find an alternative amount for damages other than the one requested. Furthermore, Timothy did not prove that he was damaged in any way by MRM’s use of his property.


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