Dunlap Acres, Ltd., et al. v. Intervest Development Corp., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01271-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01271-COA2005-CT-01271-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 05-10-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-29-2006 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Interest rate - Section 75-17-1(1) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., AND CHANDLER, J. Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J. Dissent Joined By : SOUTHWICK, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-01-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Denise Owens Disposition: AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED FINDING TWO OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS LIABLE UNDER PROMISSORY NOTES FOR PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES. Case Number: G98-2214-0/3 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DUNLAP ACRES, LTD. AND SHANNON RENTALS, LTD. |
BRENDA B. BETHANY, C. MICHAEL ELLINGBURG |
||
| Appellee: | INTERVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INTERVEST PARTNERS CORPORATION, INTERVEST CORPORATION, WEST POINT HOUSING, L.P., SHANNON HOUSING, L.P., J. STEVE NAIL AND RODNEY H. DUDLEY | BROOKS R. BUCHANAN |
|
|
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 - Interest rate - Section 75-17-1(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dunlap Acres, Ltd. developed a fifty-unit multi-family property, known as Dunlap Acres. Shannon Rentals, Ltd. developed a forty-eight-unit multi-family property, known as Shannon Rentals. In 1996, Intervest Development Corporation entered into negotiations with both Dunlap and Shannon for the purchase of both properties. Shannon sold the Shannon Rentals property to Intervest for the price of $132,400. As part of the sale, Shannon Housing, L.P. and Intervest, Shannon Housing L.P.’s general partner, executed a promissory note to pay Shannon the sum of $132,400. The promissory note was guaranteed by Intervest, Intervest Partners Corporation, J. Steve Nail, and Rodney H. Dudley. Dunlap sold the Dunlap Acres property to Intervest for the price of $140,000. As part of the sale, West Point Housing, L.P. and Intervest, West Point Housing, L.P.’s general partner, executed a promissory note to pay Dunlap the sum of $140,000. The promissory note was guaranteed by Intervest, Intervest Partners Corporation, J. Steve Nail, and Rodney H. Dudley. Dunlap later filed a complaint against Intervest, Intervest Partners Corporation, Intervest Corporation, West Point Housing, L.P., Shannon Housing L.P., J. Steve Nail, and Rodney H. Dudley. The chancellor issued an opinion and order on Dunlap’s and Shannon’s motion for partial summary judgment that determined the amounts owed on the notes. Later, the chancellor issued an opinion and order on Dunlap’s and Shannon’s second motion for partial summary judgment that determined that the interest rate owed on the notes was eight percent. Dunlap and Shannon appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Dunlap and Shannon argue that the chancellor erred in her determination of the interest rate to be applied. They rely on section 75-17-1(3) to argue that the chancellor should have applied a 15% interest rate. The promissory notes, which are virtually identical, provide that “[t]he whole of the principal sum and, to the extent permitted by law, any accrued interest, shall bear, after default, interest at the highest lawful rate then in effect pursuant [to] the laws of the State of Mississippi or of the United States of America.” The key phrase is “rate then in effect.” While interest will be paid at the highest rate, that rate must be in effect at the time of the default. The common and ordinary meaning of something that is in effect is that it is in full force, operating, and functioning. The only rate in effect under the laws of the State of Mississippi when the default occurred was the default interest rate set forth in section 75-17-1(1). While an interest rate of fifteen percent is allowed, it has to be placed in effect by the contracting parties. In other words, as the learned chancellor found, the parties have to contract for a specific rate of fifteen percent in order to place that rate in effect. That, the parties did not do. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
