Scruggs v. Merkel & Cocke, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01322-SCT Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01322-SCT ; 2003-CA-01322-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-15-2005 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Intentional interference with contract Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-21-2003 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: Dismissal of case Case Number: 97-2573-WM |
|
| Note: | ON DIRECT APPEAL: AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL: DISMISSED AS MOOT Parties' motion for voluntary partial dismissal is granted. Alwyn H. Luckey is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Alwyn H. Luckey's motion to strike is denied. Motion to Strike filed by Merkel & Cocke, P.A., Charles M. Merkel, Jr., and Cynthia I. Mitchell is dismissed as moot. Motion to Strike filed by William Roberts Wilson, Jr., P.A., is dismissed as moot. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SCRUGGS, MILLETTE, BOZEMAN & DENT, P.A. |
MARK A. NELSON |
||
| Appellee: | MERKEL & COCKE, P.A., CHARLES M. MERKEL, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SHAREHOLDER IN MERKEL & COCKE, P.A.; CYNTHIA I. MITCHELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SHAREHOLDER IN MERKEL & COCKE, P.A.; ALWYN H. LUCKEY; AND WILLIAM ROBERTS WILSON, JR., P.A. | RICHARD M. THAYER, STEPHEN W. BURROW, W. LEE WATT, JOE R. COLINGO, VICKI R. SLATER, E. FOLEY RANSON |
|
|
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 - Intentional interference with contract |
| Summary of the Facts: | Richard F. Scruggs formed Richard F. Scruggs, P.A. to handle many asbestos plaintiffs’ cases. Scruggs, P.A. hired attorney Alwyn H. Luckey to work on the asbestos cases. William Roberts Wilson was also being hired by potential asbestos plaintiffs, and he formed William Roberts Wilson, P.A. As two asbestos plaintiffs’ attorneys, Scruggs and Wilson decided to share their resources and formed another professional association, The Asbestos Group, P.A., to administer the over 200 asbestos lawsuits they had filed. The documents creating the Asbestos Group provided that Scruggs, P.A., and Wilson, P.A., would share all profits 50/50. Luckey, the attorney hired by Scruggs, P.A., began working at the Asbestos Group and, therefore, was working for both Scruggs and Wilson. Another attorney, Charles M. Merkel, Jr., was retained by the William H. Scott family to prosecute their wrongful death/product liability claims against the asbestos manufacturers. Merkel was a senior member of the Merkel & Cocke, P.A. Merkel, not having any asbestos experience, approached Wilson to help him with the Scott lawsuit. Merkel and Wilson orally agreed to share the Scott lawsuit profits 50/50. Wilson agreed to provide Merkel with resources and expert witnesses, and Merkel was to prosecute the case. Merkel then asked Cynthia I. Mitchell, an attorney who worked at his firm, to develop the Scott case. As a discovery deadline in the Scott lawsuit approached, Mitchell told Merkel that they needed to obtain information on expert witnesses. Relying on his agreement with Wilson, Merkel told Mitchell to call Wilson for that information. The information was provided as per their agreement. Later, Merkel met with Wilson to discuss strategy. Wilson informed Merkel that he had other business to tend to, but that Luckey would be able to prepare their expert witnesses and would attend the depositions. Wilson then introduced Luckey to Merkel, and Luckey performed the preparation for the depositions. Luckey attended the depositions but did not take part. From that point on, it appears that Luckey and Mitchell did most of the work on the case. Wilson, Wilson, P.A., Scruggs, Scruggs, P.A., and Luckey entered into an agreement which provided that: (1) Wilson, Wilson, P.A., Scruggs, and Scruggs, P.A., initially shared ownership of the Group equally; (2) In October of 1988, Wilson, Wilson, P.A, Scruggs, and Scruggs, P.A., gave Luckey 5% of the stock, thereby decreasing Wilson and Wilson, P.A.’s interest to 47.5% and decreasing Scruggs and Scruggs, P.A.’s interest to 47.5%; (3) In 1990, Luckey acquired an additional 10% of the stock, increasing his interest to 15%, Wilson and Wilson, P.A.’s interest was decreased to 40%, and Scruggs and Scruggs, P.A.’s interest was decreased to 45%; and (4) The business relationship existing between Wilson and Wilson, P.A. on one hand and Scruggs and Scruggs, P.A. and Luckey on the other hand is terminated. The Scott case was eventually settled for over $300,000. Merkel & Cocke, P.A. disbursed various sums to various payees: the Scott family, to itself, to Wilson, to Luckey, to Wilson and Luckey, and to the Asbestos Group. Scruggs eventually fired Luckey, and Luckey hired Merkel and Cocke to represent him in a suit against Scruggs and Wilson. After receiving notice of Scruggs’ interest in the Scott proceeds, Merkel &Cocke began escrowing the money, interpleading it, or writing letters to Wilson, Luckey and Scruggs asking how to distribute it. Scruggs filed this suit against Merkel &Cocke, Merkel, Mitchell, Wilson, Wilson, P.A., and Luckey, alleging that they tortiously interfered with his contract with Wilson and Wilson, P.A., and that he is entitled to damages. Following a trial, the chancellor dismissed Scruggs’ action with prejudice. Scruggs appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In order to prevail on a claim for intentional interference with contract, a plaintiff must establish that the acts were intentional and willful; that they were calculated to cause damage to the plaintiff in his/her lawful business; that they were done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendant (which acts constitute malice); and that actual damage or loss resulted. The chancellor found that Merkel, Merkel & Cocke and Mitchell had not acted intentionally or with malice when they did not include Scruggs, Scruggs, P.A., or the Asbestos Group in their disbursements. This finding is amply supported by the evidence which clearly shows that Wilson, Wilson, P.A., and Luckey were the ones who had the duty to share attorney’s fees with Scruggs, Scruggs, P.A., or the Asbestos Group, and that they, not Merkel, Merkel & Cocke or Mitchell, violated that duty. There is absolutely no evidence that Merkel told Wilson not to pay Scruggs because Wilson had not gotten his fair share from Scruggs. An additional element impliedly required by Mississippi courts is that the defendant’s acts were the proximate cause of the loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff. It is clear that Wilson and Luckey’s actions were the proximate cause of Scruggs, P.A. and Scruggs’ losses, not anything Merkel might have done or failed to do. Finally, when Mitchell discovered that Scruggs or Scruggs, P.A., believed that it had a claim to part of the settlement proceeds, Merkel & Cocke began escrowing or interpleading all disbursements, or writing letters to Wilson, Luckey and Scruggs asking for directions on how to distribute the funds. It is clear that Merkel, Merkel & Cocke and Mitchell did not have knowledge of the existence of the agreement between Wilson, P.A. and Scruggs, P.A. For intent to be implied, a plaintiff must show that the defendant knew of the existence of a contract and did a wrongful act without legal or social justification that he was certain or substantially certain would result in interference with the contract. Even if Merkel had knowledge of an agreement between Scruggs and Wilson and Merkel’s act of paying Wilson constituted interference, Merkel was still required to split the fees from the Scott case under the Merkel-Wilson agreement and had a legitimate right to do so. Finally, there is no evidence that the disbursements were made to Wilson, Wilson, P.A., Luckey or the Asbestos Group in order to cause damage or loss to Scruggs or Scruggs, P.A. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
