One South, Inc. v. Hollowell, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01048-SCT Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01048-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-06-2007 Opinion Author: CARLSON, J. Holding: THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT’S GRANT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE GUARANTORS, GEORGE F. HOLLOWELL, JR., JUNE H. WEATHERS, AND WILLIAM S. WEATHERS, AND AGAINST ONE SOUTH, INC., IS AFFIRMED; THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT’S DENIAL OF ONE SOUTH, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Termination of lease - Attorney’s fees Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., EASLEY, GRAVES, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-18-2006 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Richard Smith Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: CI2005-19 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ONE SOUTH, INC. |
HAROLD H. MITCHELL, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | GEORGE F. HOLLOWELL, JR., JUNE H. WEATHERS AND WILLIAMS S. WEATHERS | JEFFREY A. LEVINGSTON |
|
|
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 - Termination of lease - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | One South, Inc., instituted an action against the guarantors on a lease agreement for the lease of certain nonresidential real property. After the lessee, Hollowell Mercantile Company, Inc., missed two rental payments and filed for bankruptcy, One South regained possession of the property, but sought to have the lease agreement accelerated, with the guarantors to pay out the remaining portion of the lease agreement plus reasonable attorney fees. Under the assumption that One South had terminated the lease agreement by retaking possession of the property, the guarantors filed for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted the guarantors’ motion for partial summary judgment, and One South appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Termination of lease One South argues that the lease agreement between One South and Hollowell Mercantile did not terminate, as the trial court determined, on September 23, 2004, and thus, was in full force and effect until September 15, 2006, when the lease agreement actually expired by its terms. Looking at the four corners of the lease agreement, the language of the agreement is clear and unambiguous. Hollowell Mercantile defaulted on the lease agreement beginning in March 2004, by failing to make the requisite $4,000 monthly payment. Furthermore, by filing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy on May 1, 2004, Hollowell Mercantile placed the lease agreement in default. According to the plain language of the contract, upon default by the tenant, section 13.00 gave the landlord two options: the landlord could terminate the lease agreement by declaring the term ended, and re-enter and take possession of the premises or the landlord could cause the tenant to perform its obligations and undertakings. By its actions, the landlord, One South, clearly elected to terminate the lease agreement by re-entering and taking possession of the premises. The lease agreement terminated on September 23, 2004, when the lease agreement was rejected and abandoned by the Bankruptcy Court because of the Motion to Lift Stay and Abandon Property filed by One South. Thus, based on the clear language of the lease, damages were limited to “unpaid rental or other payments due from Tenant which had been earned or accrued at the time o[f] such termination.” The amount of damages owed to One South after termination is controlled and limited by the lease agreement. Therefore, the trial court was correct in limiting damages. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees One South argues that the court erred by not reading the guaranty agreement together with the lease agreement and finding the guarantors liable for reasonable attorney’s fees, in addition to the past-due rental payments. To support its contention in support of an award of attorney’s fees, One South points to the guaranty agreement signed by the guarantors. According to the guaranty agreement, the guarantors are liable to the extent that Hollowell Mercantile would be liable. Since the lease agreement and the guaranty agreement were executed at the same time and by the same parties as part of the same transaction, the two documents are to be construed as one instrument. Under the instrument, the guarantors are liable for One South’s reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses for collecting the $20,000 past-due rental payments. Therefore, this issue is remanded to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses to be assessed against the guarantors and in favor of One South. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
