Windham v. LATCO of Miss., Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CT-02086-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-02086-SCT ; 2005-CA-02086-COA ; 2005-CA-02086-COA ; 2005-CT-02086-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2008 Opinion Author: RANDOLPH, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Statute of repose - Section 15-1-41 - Section 15-1-3 - Equitable estoppel - Fraudulent concealment - Section 15-1-67 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Lamar, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-30-2005 Appealed from: SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Latco. The Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of summary judgment. Case Number: 2004-CV-190-SC-G |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses and remands a previous opinion by the Court of Appeals. See the original COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO38714.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | STEVE WINDHAM, JAMES E. SMITH AND
CHAD L. GARVIN |
P. SHAWN HARRIS |
|
|
| Appellee: | LATCO OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. AND FABRAL, INC. | TIMOTHY D. MOORE, JAMES W. SHELSON, JOHN P. SNEED, JUSTIN L. MATHENY | ||
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 - Statute of repose - Section 15-1-41 - Section 15-1-3 - Equitable estoppel - Fraudulent concealment - Section 15-1-67 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Choctaw Maid Farms, Inc., a poultry processor, undertook an expansion project that necessitated its farmers construct housing for the additional chickens Choctaw would require given the resultant increase in post-expansion production. The houses were designed and manufactured by Fabral, Inc., and Latco of Mississippi, Inc. acted as the general contractor during the construction. Chicken farmers James Smith and Chad Garvin each contracted with Latco to build the poultry houses utilizing a new roofing system called grand beam design, which was developed and manufactured by Fabral. Chicken farmer Steve Windham’s houses were completed in 1996 as well, but he did not purchase them until 1998. Following completion of the houses, Windham’s houses were occupied in January 1996, Smith’s in July or August 1995 and Garvin’s during the summer of 1996. Subsequently, Windham discovered that his newly designed roofs were leaking in January 1999, Smith during the summer of 1997, and Garvin in December 1999. Following repeated unsuccessful attempts to correct the problem causing the leaks, the three men filed suit. Fabral filed a motion for summary judgment. Soon after, Latco filed its motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motions, finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were filed outside of the six-year time frame of the statute of repose and that a claim of fraudulent concealment does not toll the statute of repose. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue in this case is whether an act of concealed fraud, if proven, bars the limitation applicable to actions arising from deficiencies in construction or improvements to real property found in section 15-1-41, commonly referred to as a statute of repose. In Mississippi, the distinction between a statute of limitations and a statute of repose may be one without a difference, as the successful plea of either a statute of limitation or a statute of repose commands the same conclusion. Specifically, section 15-1-3 provides that the completion of the period of limitation prescribed to bar any action, shall defeat and extinguish the right as well as the remedy. Victims of fraud have common-law remedies available, one of which is estoppel. The statute of repose is not tolled by fraud, but fraud, instead, gives rise to the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which prevents the defendant from asserting the defense of the statute of repose, because his or her own wrongful conduct gave rise to the defense and prevented the plaintiff from exercising reasonable diligence to learn the nature and cause of the injury attributable to the defendant and from bringing suit. The language of section 15-1-3 extends to both statutes of limitations and statutes of repose. As fraud can never be sanctioned, the Legislature intended that the fraudulent-concealment exception of section 15-1-67 applies to the statute of repose in section 15-1-41. If fraudulent concealment is proven, equity mandates that the tortfeasor be barred from benefitting from the statute of repose in section 15-1-41. Application of section 15-1-41 is not barred if the fraudulent concealment was known, or with due diligence could have been discovered, within the six-year repose period. This holding balances the denial of repose protection to architects, contractors, and engineers who engage in fraudulent concealment, while requiring plaintiffs to exercise due diligence in pursuing their causes of action. Under either an equitable-estoppel theory or the fraudulent concealment exception of section 15-1-67, application of section 15-1-41 may be barred. Therefore, the case is reversed and remanded to the circuit court to determine whether genuine issues of material fact related to fraudulent concealment exist. To the extent that prior Court of Appeals’ opinions substantiated a fraudulent-concealment exception to the statute of repose found in section 15-1-41, they are overruled. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
