Williams v. King, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01239-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-02-2003 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Proof of title - Slander of title - Damages - Private nuisance - Default judgment Judge(s) Concurring: McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-25-2002 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Thomas L. Zebert Disposition: CHARLES KING HAS NO CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT EXCEPT ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST HE MAY HAVE BY VIRTUE OF HIS MARRIAGE AND THAT ALL OTHER RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE COMPLAINT IS DENIED Case Number: 48,912 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | OLIVER WILLIAMS AND MINNIE WILLIAMS |
ORBIE S. CRAFT |
||
| Appellee: | CHARLES KING, WILLIE EARL WOOTEN AND ANNIE STEWART | CHRISTOPHER A. TABB |
|
|
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 - Proof of title - Slander of title - Damages - Private nuisance - Default judgment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Oliver and Minnie Williams filed suit against Charles King and two other individuals, asserting claims for adverse possession, prescriptive easement, interference with use and quite enjoyment, slander of title, to cancel cloud on title and for monetary damages. The chancellor determined that the issue of ownership was not before the court, there was no slander of title, and Oliver and Minnie were not entitled to damages. The Williamses appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Adverse possession & Prescriptive easement The Williamses argue that the court erred in denying their claims for adverse possession, prescriptive easement, and to cancel cloud on title. The plaintiff in an action to remove cloud on title had the burden of showing perfect title himself. The evidence in this case consisted of three witnesses, a deed, several photos and a plat of the property. Because the chancellor had neither a deraignment of title nor other sufficient evidence to establish title or ownership that would be necessary to prove claims for adverse possession, prescriptive easement or to remove a cloud on title, the chancellor’s decision on these claims is affirmed. Issue 2: Slander of title The Williamses argue that the court erred in denying their claim for slander of title. For the statement to form the basis of a claim for slander of title, it must have been made not only falsely but maliciously. The chancellor determined that because King believed the property in question belonged to his wife, any statement he made could not have been malicious. Based on the evidence presented, the chancellor did not err in denying the claim for slander of title. Issue 3: Damages The Williamses argue that the court erred in denying their claim for damages. The damage claims are for emotional distress, attorney’s fees and litigation costs. The evidence to support such claims was insufficient. Oliver testified that he paid his attorney $2,500 and an undisclosed amount to the surveyor. No evidence was submitted as to the necessity and reasonableness of the attorney’s fees. Issue 4: Private nuisance The Williamses argue that they sufficiently proved their claim of interference with the use and quiet enjoyment of their property. A private nuisance may be shown by conduct causing an invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land that is either intentional and unreasonable; unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct; or unintentional and actionable for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities. The chancellor’s judgment refers to the chancellor’s conclusion that the issue of ownership was not before the court. However, substantial evidence was presented to establish Oliver and Minnie's claim for private nuisance against King. The testimony established that King's dog was threatening to others. Therefore, the claim is remanded for further consideration of an appropriate remedy. Issue 5: Default The Williamses argue that the court erred in failing to enter a judgment against Wooten and Stewart. Although Wooten and Stewart were properly served with the summons and complaint, they filed no responsive pleading. An application to the clerk for entry of default and supporting affidavit was filed, and the clerk entered a default. However, the plaintiffs have neither moved the court for an entry of a default judgment nor presented sufficient evidence of a sum certain due or the relief to which they are entitled. The chancellor did not err in failing to consider that which was not asked of him. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
