Tupelo Redevelopment Agency v. Abernathy, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01837-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-07-2005 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Rendered in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Appraisal - Prejudgment interest - Admission of testimony - Attorney’s fees Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-02-2002 Appealed from: Lee County Special Court of Eminent Domain Judge: William R. Lamb Disposition: Found that the subject property was to be sold at a price determined by a court-ordered appraisal and that TRA was to pay interest from and after February 1, 2002, until the closing date. Case Number: 00-0463 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2002-CA-01838-SCT Tupelo Redevelopment Agency v. Sue W. Abernathy, G. L. Wilemon, Jr., Joann W. Westmoreland, Donald Brett Bethay and Barry Lane Bethay; Lee Special Court of Eminent Domain; LC Case #: 99-0804; Ruling Date: 10/02/2002; Ruling Judge: William R. Lamb Consolidated with 2002-CA-01839-SCT Tupelo Redevelopment Agency v. Sue W. Abernathy, G. L. Wilemon, Jr., Joann W. Westmoreland, Donald Brett Bethay and Barry Lane Bethay; Lee Special Court of Eminent Domain; LC Case #: 99-0806; Ruling Date: 10/02/2002; Ruling Judge: William R. Lamb | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TUPELO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY |
MARTHA BOST STEGALL, GUY W. MITCHELL, III |
||
| Appellee: | SUE W. ABERNATHY, G. L. WILEMON, JR., JOANN W. WESTMORELAND, DONALD BRETT BETHAY AND BARRY LANE BETHAY | DEWITT T. HICKS, JR., P. NELSON SMITH, JR. |
|
|
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: | Eminent domain - Appraisal - Prejudgment interest - Admission of testimony - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tupelo Redevelopment Agency brought an eminent domain action against Sue Abernathy, G.L. Wilemon, Jr., Joann Westmoreland, Donald Bethay and Barry Bethay. The court ruled that the subject property was to be sold at a price determined by a court-ordered appraisal and that TRA was to pay interest from and after February 1, 2002, until the closing date. Both sides appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Appraisal TRA and the Landowners reached a settlement which provided that the purchase price for each tract of land shall be determined by an appraisal. The first appraisal included the valuation consideration of the improvements made by TRA and valued the three properties together at $925,000. TRA claimed error and requested a second appraisal excluding the valuation consideration of the improvements made. The second appraisal valued the three properties at $330,000. The Landowners argue that the first appraisal was the correct and proper appraisal because it was made after a meeting of all parties to the litigation and the parameters for that appraisal were agreed upon by all parties. In construing a contract, the reviewing court looks to the language that the parties used in expressing their agreement. If the court is unable to translate a clear understanding of the parties’ intent, the court should apply the discretionary “canons” of contract construction. Here, the settlement agreement is completely silent as to whether or not the appraisers were to disregard the improvements of TRA in reaching an appraisal value. From this silence, there is only one reasonable interpretation, that the parties’ intent was to assess market value of the subject property, excluding the value of TRA’s improvements. Issue 2: Interest TRA argues that the court erred in ordering it to pay interest at a rate of 8% from and after February 1, 2002, until closing on the value determined by the new appraisal , plus the premiums of 18% and 20% as provided in the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement did not provide for a rate or award of interest on the amount to be paid by TRA. Where this is no provision in the parties’ contract concerning payment of interest, the law in Mississippi regarding an award of prejudgment interest is clear. Such an award is discretionary with the trial judge but is available only if the money due was liquidated and there was no legitimate dispute that the money was owed. TRA never denied that a purchase price was owed to the Landowners. According to the settlement agreement, the amount to be paid by TRA was to be determined by a future appraisal report. The amount to be paid by TRA (plus the premiums) was not liquidated prior to the judgment. In addition, the record lacks sufficient proof to suggest that the delay in closing was due to bad faith by TRA. Therefore, the court’s award of prejudgment interest in this case constitutes error. Issue 3: Admission of testimony The Landowners argue that the court erred in admitting the testimony of TRA’s chairman regarding his authority to rescind the settlement agreement or to postpone the closing of the transaction until certain acts were performed, because a municipality and its agencies and bodies can act only through their minutes. The facts in this do not deal with contract formation nor authority to bind the locality or municipality to the terms of a contract but with testimony which attempts to explain or clarify the chairman’s actions which are contained in the minutes. The chairman’s testimony was independently relevant to the issue of whether he had authority to alter the settlement agreement or to postpone the closing of the transaction and is a matter of which he was both capable and competent to testify. Issue 4: Attorney’s fees The Landowners argue that the settlement agreement provided for an award of attorneys’ fees. Parties may by contract provide that in the event a dispute arises, the losing party must pay the prevailing party reasonable attorneys’ fees. Here, it cannot be said that the Landowners were successful in bringing an action to enforce the settlement agreement. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award the Landowners attorneys’ fees. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
