Powell v. Campbell
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01602-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-20-2005 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Oral agreement - Factual findings - Equitable estoppel - Restitution Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-21-2004 Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: Judgment dismissing his chancery court lawsuit for damages against the owner. Case Number: 2002-0370 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JAMES S. POWELL |
KEITH R. RAULSTON |
||
| Appellee: | OUIDA CAMPBELL | WENDY C. HOLLINGSWORTH JAMES W. BACKSTROM |
|
|
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 - Oral agreement - Factual findings - Equitable estoppel - Restitution |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ouida Campbell owned land in Jones County that contained two mobile home parks, the dried lake bed of Indian Springs Lake, and land positioned south of an old spillway. After her husband became ill, Campbell decided to sell the property in Jones County. Campbell contacted James Powell and his wife and asked if they would be interested in purchasing her property. The Powells, whose home was adjacent to the land Campbell hoped to sell, visited the property, and Campbell offered it to the Powells for $150,000. The Powells did not purchase the property, but a year later James Powell told Campbell that he was interested in buying a portion of her property - specifically, the old lake bed and the land south of the spillway. Powell arranged for an appraisal and survey of the land he hoped to purchase. The appraisal was conducted in August of 2001 and indicated that the value of the property south of the spillway was $1,500 per acre and that the land encompassing the old lake bed was worth an estimated $1,000 per acre. Campbell agreed to sell Powell the land at the per acre amount determined by the appraisal. However, the survey work was not completed until early the next year. Campbell asked Powell for a $10,000 down payment. Powell’s attorney advised having Campbell sign a contract for the sale of the land before giving her the money. Powell’s attorney drafted a contract, but Campbell wanted parts of it changed before she would sign it. Campbell never received a revised version of the contract or the down payment she requested from Powell. Powell had a law firm conduct a title search of the land. Unbeknownst to Powell or his attorney, Campbell had been offered $150,000 for the entire property and $13,000 for her mobile home by Kenneth Graves. Graves eventually paid Campbell $5,000 in earnest money to secure his right to buy the property. Anxious to sell her property, Campbell sold the land to Graves. Powell filed suit against Campbell asserting a number of causes of action and arguing that he spent a great deal of money for an appraisal, survey, and title work in reliance on Campbell’s agreement to sell the property. Powell sought $100,000 in actual damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. The chancellor found for Campbell opining that any oral contract for the sale of land would violate the statute of frauds, but that no contract for the sale of land had ever come into existence in this case. The chancellor also found that the condition of a down payment was never met by Powell, and Powell’s argument concerning equitable estoppel was without merit. Powell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Powell argues that the chancellor erred in his determinations concerning five factual issues. All of the errors Powell alleges the chancellor made in his factual findings turn on conflicting testimony. However, Powell’s occasional references to the record and testimony show no evidence that the chancellor’s factual determinations were manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous. Powell also argues that the chancellor erred in refusing to use equitable estoppel to enforce his oral agreement with Campbell, because he relied on Campbell’s promise to sell her land and spent money in reliance on that promise. Estoppel should only be used in exceptional circumstances and must be based on public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and reasonableness. Knowing that Campbell was anxious to sell her property and in immediate need of the proceeds from the sale, Powell unreasonably failed to give Campbell a down payment to secure his right to purchase the property. After eight months, Powell still had not provided Campbell with a written contract or any earnest money and had allowed inaccurate survey lines and incomplete title work to further complicate the agreement to sell Campbell’s property. While Powell did take financially detrimental steps in reliance on Campbell’s promise, he simply has not shown that, in light of his actions, estoppel would be the most fair and reasonable remedy or that injustice can only be avoided by enforcement of Campbell’s promise. Powell also argues that the chancellor erred in failing to award him restitutionary damages. The theory of restitution is founded on the unjust enrichment of one at the expense of another. Powell paid Campbell nothing, and he has failed to show that Campbell was unjustly enriched by retaining any money or property that should rightfully be his. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
