Whitefoot v. BancorpSouth Bank
| Docket Number: | 2001-CP-01753-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-01753-SCT ; 2001-CT-01753-SCT ; 2001-CT-01753-SCT ; 2001-CP-01753-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-24-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Reformation of legal description - Waiver - Standard - Amendment of complaint - Necessary parties - Mutual mistake - Statute of limitations - Homestead exemption - Section 89-1-29 Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-28-2001 Appealed from: Clay County Chancery Court Judge: Robert L. Lancaster Disposition: APPROVED LEGAL DESCRIPTION DERIVED FROM SURVEY, REFORMED ALL DEEDS OF TRUST AND AUTHORIZED APPELLEE TO ENFORCE ITS DEEDS OF TRUST ACCORDING TO TERMS, AS REFORMED. Case Number: 98-108 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | David Whitefoot and Elena Whitefoot |
DAVID WHITEFOOT (PRO SE)
ELENA WHITEFOOT (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | BancorpSouth Bank f/k/a Bank of Mississippi | LES ALVIS PAT CALDWELL |
|
|
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 - Reformation of legal description - Waiver - Standard - Amendment of complaint - Necessary parties - Mutual mistake - Statute of limitations - Homestead exemption - Section 89-1-29 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bank of Mississippi, now known as BancorpSouth, filed suit seeking reformation of the legal description of property used as collateral for a bank loan by David and Elena Whitefoot, formerly known as David and Linda Jones. The court ruled in favor of the Bank and directed that a survey be made to create a legal description comporting with the intent of the parties. Final judgment was entered approving the legal description derived from the survey, and the Whitefoots appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Waiver The Whitefoots argue that the Bank became aware that the house was outside the legal description prior to the renewal of the loan and therefore waived its right to claim a lien on the house when it knowingly used the erroneous description in the last renewal deed of trust. The chancellor was fully satisfied that, notwithstanding the erroneous description, that what the parties intended was clear beyond a reasonable doubt which was to renew, extend and continue the lending relationship which began in 1988 and surrounded all the prior transactions. There is no error in the chancellor’s findings. Issue 2: Standard The Whitefoots argue that the court erred when it decided the case on Mississippi case law that says that a mere change in the form of the evidence of the debt cannot operate to discharge a lien but should have applied case law based on mutual mistake to reform a deed or contract. It is not the description they intended to write which controls, but the property the parties intended to include in the description used. Therefore, the chancellor did apply the correct legal standard in this case. Issue 3: Amendment of complaint The Whitefoots argue that the court erred because it allowed the Bank to argue the case on a different set of facts and argue a different standard of review from that claimed in the initial complaint. Because they did not object at trial, they have waive the right to raise the issue on appeal. In addition, the Bank's arguments at trial are consistent with the various alternative counts found in its complaint. Issue 4: Necessary parties The Whitefoots argue that the court erred in entering an order concerning EB, Inc. which was originally listed as a party and in failing to join Greystone Mortgage and FHA as necessary parties since they were previously lienholders on the thirty-two acres owned by the Whitefoots. Not only did the Whitefoots never raise any objection nor move for the joinder of Greystone Mortgage and the FHA as necessary parties, they cannot show any prejudice as a result of the order or failure to join other parties. Issue 5: Mutual mistake The Whitefoots argue that the evidence proves that there was no mutual mistake. In an action to reform a deed based on a mistake theory, any instrument can be reformed on unilateral mistake where there is inequitable conduct by the benefitting party in connection with the mistake. Here, the equities were with the Bank as to the alleged difference in intent between the deeds of trust. Issue 6: Statute of limitations The Whitefoots argue that, since the Bank filed its suit more than ten years after the original deed of trust, the action should be barred. Regarding claims to land, for the statute of limitations to apply the possession against the claimant must be adverse. Here, the Whitefoots' possession of the property was never adverse to that of the Bank's lien interest at any time prior to the renewal, if then. Issue 7: Homestead exemption The Whitefoots argue that the judgment entered by the court impairs their right to homestead exemption. Section 89-1-29 provides that deeds of trust executed by both spouses are enforceable about their homestead. The Whitefoots have admitted that the Bank had a lien on their house at all times prior to the renewal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
