Ellzey v. James
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00758-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00758-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-20-2007 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Reconveyance deed - M.R.E. 1002 - M.R.E. 1003 - Clean hands doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-06-2006 Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: APPELLEE FOUND TO BE OWNER OF MINERAL RIGHTS. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RICKEY W. ELLZEY |
PAMELA LYNN HUDDLESTON |
||
| Appellee: | SHERRY L. JAMES, FORMERLY SHERRY L. WALLER | HENRY S. DAVIS, JR. JOHN L. JEFFRIES |
|
|
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: | Real property - Reconveyance deed - M.R.E. 1002 - M.R.E. 1003 - Clean hands doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rickey Ellzey filed a complaint in chancery court praying for the return of mineral interests which Ellzey had transferred to Sherry James in an effort to conceal his assets from Medicaid. The chancellor determined James to be the sole owner of the mineral interests, and Ellzey appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ellzey argues that the chancellor erred by finding James to be the sole owner of the mineral interests, because the copy of the reconveyance deed in evidence showed James' signature and James admitted it was her signature at the hearing. M.R.E. 1002 states that, to prove the contents of a writing, the original is required, unless otherwise provided by law. Under M.R.E. 1003, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. The chancellor found that the copy of the reconveyance deed did not accurately represent the original because it was a partial copy. In determining that Ellzey was not entitled to any relief, the chancellor applied the maxim that he who doeth fraud, may not borrow the hands of the chancellor to draw equity from a source his own hands hath polluted. Ellzey transferred the mineral interests to James in order to conceal his assets from Medicaid. He invoked the aid of the chancery court to remedy a problem created by his own fraudulent act. Therefore, the chancellor appropriately held that Ellzey was not entitled to relief. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
