Simmons v. Jaggers
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01674-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-27-2005 Opinion Author: Dickinson, Jess H. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Breach of contract - Oral construction contract Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J., Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J., Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-21-2004 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Jaqueline Mask Disposition: Trial court determined the parties had indeed entered a valid, enforceable, oral contract, and that the father was entitled to the fee. Case Number: 02-1069-41-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | EDDIE SIMMONS AND CHRISTI SIMMONS |
DEEDY BOLAND |
||
| Appellee: | MARVIN JAGGERS | GARY L. CARNATHAN |
|
|
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: | Breach of contract - Oral construction contract |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shortly before Eddie and Christi Simmons were married, they considered purchasing a home. Christi’s father, Marvin Jaggers, discussed with the couple the idea of building a house. The Simmonses obtained a $115,000 construction loan and purchased a lot. Jaggers supervised the construction and completed the house, and the Simmonses moved in. The Simmonses claim that Jaggers orally agreed to oversee the construction of their marital home as a wedding gift. Jaggers claims his daughter and son-in-law promised to pay him a $20,000 fee for his services when the home was sold. Later, when the house was to be sold, the couple denied the agreement to pay the fee, prompting Jaggers to file a construction lien on the home. The Simmonses filed suit to extinguish the lien. Jaggers then countersued for breach of an oral construction contract. The parties agreed to transform the litigation into a simple declaratory judgment action. The chancellor determined the parties had entered a valid, enforceable, oral contract, and that Jaggers was entitled to the fee. The Simmonses appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Simmonses argue that the chancellor’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were insufficient. Jaggers testified that the cost of building the house was approximately $115,000 and that a new house with a construction cost should have sold for around $180,000. Thus, if he were a general contractor building this particular house, he would have made approximately $60,000 to $65,000, but he agreed to do it for $20,000 because the house was for his daughter. Jaggers hired subcontractors, including his son, Jeff Jaggers, who was a builder or carpenter. Jaggers testified that the Simmonses took out a construction loan of $115,000 and that it took about six to eight months to build the house. Jaggers further testified that he expected to receive his money when the Simmonses sold the home and that Christi told him a woman from California had put up the money to buy the house. Christi’s brother, Jeff, testified that he worked on the Simmonses’ house at the request of his father. During the construction of the home, Jeff heard his father and Eddie talking about how Jaggers would be paid $20,000 for his services out of the proceeds from the sale of the house. Jeff also stated that, in his opinion, a contractor would normally charge more than $20,000 to build this house. Jeff stated he had never heard his father say the house was a gift. In light of the record, the chancellor did not commit manifest error in determining that an oral contract existed between the parties. Jaggers’ testimony, which was corroborated by the Christi’s brother, Jeff, clearly established an oral contract. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
