Lange v. City of Batesville


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CA-00533-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00533-SCT
Oral Argument: 10-17-2007
 

 

* 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: 01-08-2008
Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Parol evidence - Collateral estoppel - Damages
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-07-2007
Appealed from: PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Ann H. Lamar
Disposition: Summary Judgment entered in favor of the City of Batesville.
Case Number: CV2006-08LB

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JULIA W. LANGE, DAVID L. LANGE, JAMES S. WHITAKER, JR. AND JAMES S. WHITAKER, SR., BY AND THROUGH THE EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE, JOYCE WHITAKER




EDWARD P. CONNELL, CHARLES M. MERKEL



 

Appellee: CITY OF BATESVILLE BENJAMIN E. GRIFFITH, MICHAEL STEPHEN CARR  

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 - Parol evidence - Collateral estoppel - Damages

Summary of the Facts: The Whitakers and Panola County entered into an agreement under which the Whitakers agreed to give the county 70,000 cubic yards of dirt to be used for future construction in exchange for a “public road” the county would build on the Whitakers’ land. After the county realized it was financially unable to complete the project, the City of Batesville agreed to take over the project and the agreement. After confusion over the specifics of the road arose, the Whitakers began their legal battle with a bill of exceptions that ultimately led to their current complaint for breach of contract. The City filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. The Whitakers appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Parol evidence The trial court found that parol evidence should not have been considered when determining the meaning of “public road” as used by the parties. The Whitakers argue the court erred in so ruling, because the phrase is ambiguous, the agreement is incomplete because it does not recite the specifics of the “public road” to be built, and the parol evidence rule is not applicable to a determination of the true consideration to a contract. When the language of a contract is ambiguous parol evidence may be admitted to clarify the meaning of the ambiguity. However, contracts in which one of the parties is a board of supervisors or other public board are treated differently. While public boards speak only through their minutes and their actions are evidenced solely by entries on their minutes, the contract may be enforced if enough of the terms and conditions of the contract are contained in the minutes for a determination of the liabilities and obligations of the contracting parties without the necessity of resorting to other evidence. Therefore, application of the parol evidence rule’s exception for ambiguity has no application to contracts entered into by a public board. The Whitakers argue that the agreement is incomplete because it does not give specifics of the “public road” that was to be built. While the agreement and subsequent discussions by the board of aldermen, as evinced by its minutes, obviously did not go into great detail on the specifics of Whitaker Road, they did describe the road with sufficient detail so as to remove the contract from consideration as incomplete. The Whitakers argue that because the agreement states “for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration” extrinsic evidence is allowed to show what the true consideration for the agreement was. As with evidence explaining ambiguity, evidence outside a board’s minutes offered to explain the consideration of an agreement with a public board is not admissible. Issue 2: Collateral estoppel The trial court found that in their first appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Whitakers included a breach of contract action seeking money damages claiming that the City’s decision devalued their property and that therefore, that any argument that Whitaker Road is not the “main” road is precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Essentially, the Court of Appeals held that the Whitakers’ breach of contract claims were not ripe for review and “[u]ntil there is a breach, we may not properly determine exactly what obligations the City has as to the specifics of a road.” Collateral estoppel, unlike the broader question of res judicata, applies only to questions actually litigated in a prior suit, and not to questions which might have been litigated. At the time the Whitakers filed their most recent complaint, the issue of whether Whitaker Road, as built, breached the agreement between the City and the Whitakers had yet to be decided. As such, the Court’s holding in the first appeal did not preclude a future action based upon breach of contract. Therefore, while the Whitakers’ claim was not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment as there was no breach of the agreement by the City. Issue 3: Damages It is clear that the City agreed to build a five-lane public road that would be the main, east-most road leading to the arena. Whitaker Road satisfies all these requirements. It is a five-lane “public road” that is the main, east-most road leading to the arena and was completed within a reasonable time. Therefore, the City did not breach the agreement. As the Whitakers have failed to show the City breached the agreement, the issue of damages is moot.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court