Re/Max Real Estate Partners, Inc., et al. v. Lindsley


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-IA-00639-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-20-2003
Opinion Author: Diaz, J.
Holding: Affirmed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Breach of contract - Accounting - Jurisdiction
Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae, P.J., Easley and Graves, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Waller, J. J.,
Dissent Joined By : Smith, P.J., Cobb and Carlson, JJ.
Procedural History: Interlocutory Appeal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2001
Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court
Judge: Johnny Lee Williams
Disposition: Denied a motion to transfer the case to the circuit court court.

Note: This Court granted the defendants’ petition for interlocutory appeal by permission.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: RE/MAX REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, INC., RE-MAX REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, AND JUDITH H. CORTS




KRISTEN A. HORTON G. TODD BURWELL



 

Appellee: PAMELA LINDSLEY JACK W. LAND MICHAEL K. RANDOLPH JOE D. STEVENS  

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 - Accounting - Jurisdiction

Summary of the Facts: Pamela Lindsley sued Re/Max Real Estate Partners, Inc., Re-Max Real Estate Partners, and Judith H. Corts in chancery court seeking damages for breach of contract, cancellation of contract, accounting of funds, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to transfer to circuit court which the chancellor denied. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ petition for interlocutory appeal by permission.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Lindsley's complaint alleges that defendants breached their duty to Lindsley by failing to instruct and supervise a third party; that defendants’ failure to instruct and supervise constitutes gross negligence and/or intentional conduct entitling Lindsley to punitive damages, that defendants breached a listing agreement entered into by the parties, and that Lindsley is entitled to an accounting. Defendants argue that, with the exception of the accounting claim, these claims are legal in nature, not equitable. Chancery courts have historically had jurisdiction over suits for accounting. Where there is in a case one issue of exclusive equity cognizance, such an issue can bring the entire case within subject matter jurisdiction of the chancery court and that court may proceed to adjudicate all legal issues as well. Where some doubt exists as to whether a complaint is legal or equitable in nature, the better practice is to try the case in circuit court. Factors to consider when deciding whether a court of equity has jurisdiction over matters of account include the need of discovery, the complicated character of the accounts, and the existence of a fiduciary or trust relation. Here, it was proper for Lindsley to bring this suit in chancery court and not unduly prejudicial to require the defendants to defend this suit in that court. Lindsley has sufficiently alleged the necessity of discovery, the complicated nature of the accounts, and the existence of a fiduciary or trust relation. There is a need for an accounting to determine where the money is and what form it now assumes so that the court may decide the best way for Lindsley to recover the money, if any, that she is due. The accounting claim is the pivotal claim by which the other claims will be measured and by which proper relief may be granted. Discovery of the location and form of the misappropriated funds may define the extent of the breach, if any, of the Listing Agreement, and of the defendants’ failure, if any, to instruct and supervise their agent.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court