Kendrix v. Huckaby
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00098-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-01-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Weight of evidence - Rental only contract Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-22-2005 Appealed from: Calhoun County Chancery Court Judge: Edwin Hayes Roberts, Jr. Disposition: JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF Case Number: 2005-051(R) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HOULAN KENDRIX |
TERRY T. JAMES |
||
| Appellee: | JAMES L. HUCKABY | CLIFF R. EASLEY |
|
|
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 - Weight of evidence - Rental only contract |
| Summary of the Facts: | Houlan Kendrix and James Huckaby entered into a written contract that is titled “Rental Agreement.” The contract concerns a piece of property that contains a house, a shop, and an old service station. When the contract was signed, the home was fully furnished, and the shop contained molds and machinery. According to the written terms of the contract, rental payments of $400 per month were to be made for fifteen years, with an additional $8,000 due at the end of the fifteen-year period, for a total contract payment of $80,000. The contract also contains provisions for who would be responsible for the contract in the event of the death of either party. Kendrix maintained insurance on the property until some time in the mid-1990s, when he allowed the insurance to lapse. Huckaby took over the payment of insurance. At that time, Huckaby changed the language on the monthly receipts he gave Kendrix from “land and house purchase” to “rent.” In January, 2004, Kendrix alleged that he approached Huckaby to offer the $8,000 balloon payment, but Huckaby insisted that their contractual fifteen-year period had not yet run. Both parties agree that Kendrix continued to make monthly payments of $400 to Huckaby, and Huckaby accepted those payments. On January 25, 2005, Kendrix’s attorney informed Huckaby by letter that Kendrix wanted to purchase the property and was ready to pay $3,200, which he maintained was the remainder of the balloon payment. Huckaby refused to deed the property to Kendrix, and Kendrix sued Huckaby. Huckaby filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Kendrix, seeking payment for rent for the period of time Kendrix lived on the property after Huckaby had declared the contract null and void because of Kendrix’s alleged breach by failing to keep the property insured and by failing to pay the $8,000 balloon payment. Huckaby also sought possession of the property and attorney’s fees. The court ordered Kendrix to pay the $3,200 outstanding on the contract, as well as $4,400 in rent for eleven months when Kendrix lived on the property but tendered no payment to Huckaby. The chancellor also gave Kendrix thirty days to remove himself from the property. Kendrix appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Kendrix argues that the chancellor’s decision was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The undisputed facts reveal that Kendrix and Huckaby entered into a contract whose terms included monthly payments and a final balloon payment, at which time Huckaby would transfer the property to Kendrix’s possession. However, Kendrix and Huckaby disagree as to whether the balloon payment was tendered in a timely fashion. Although Kendrix contends that he offered the payment and Huckaby refused to accept it, Huckaby testified that Kendrix never offered to pay the $8,000, and that the conversation referenced by Kendrix actually concerned a check that had been rejected for insufficient funds. Given this conflicting evidence, the chancellor was entitled to accept whichever version of events he found more credible. Huckaby maintains that their rent-to-own contract changed to a rental only contract after Kendrix stopped paying for insurance. Supporting this contention is Kendrix’s admission that the wording on the receipts he received from Huckaby changed in December of 1995 to indicate that the payments received were for “rent” rather than for “house and land.” Under these circumstances, the chancellor is not manifestly in error for finding that Kendrix’s payment of insurance was an essential term of the contract that Kendrix failed to meet. The court ordered Kendrix to pay the outstanding balance of the balloon payment, $3,200, as well as eleven months of rental payments, totaling $4,400. The $3,200 was derived by subtracting the extra year of rental payments made by Kendrix, $4,800, from the $8,000 balloon payment, which the court indicated was part of the rental agreement between Kendrix and Huckaby. The chancellor erred in treating the agreement as a rental contract, with an $8,000 balloon payment. The chancellor should have simply ordered Kendrick to pay the additional eleven months of rental payments, which amount, when added to the $4,800 already paid by Kendrick, would constitute full rental payments for the period of time in which Kendrick lived on the property after breaching the contract. Therefore, the court should have ordered Kendrix to pay Huckaby $4,400, not $7,600. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
