Smith v. Capus Edge of Hattiesburg, LLC


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-02098-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-23-2010
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Property damage - Res judicata - M.R.C.P. 56 - Damages - Breach of duty
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PROPERTY DAMAGE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-01-2008
Appealed from: Lamar County Circuit Court
Judge: Prentiss Harrell
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO APPELLEES
Case Number: 2004-0335-EH

Note: Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: PAUL G. SMITH




WILLIAM L. DUCKER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: CAMPUS EDGE OF HATTIESBURG, LLC AND HATTIESBURG ASSOCIATES OWNER, LLC VICK K. SMITH, A. KELLY SESSOMS III, WILLIAM HEATH HILLMAN, BRADLEY ROBERT SANDERS, 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: Property damage - Res judicata - M.R.C.P. 56 - Damages - Breach of duty

    Summary of the Facts: Paul Smith owned land in Hattiesburg on which four duplexes were located that he rented. He later purchased another piece of property that is adjacent to both Smith’s previously-owned property and the adjacent property of Terra Firma, Inc. Terra Firma is the predecessor-in-title to the property next to Smith’s that was owned by Campus Edge of Hattiesburg, LLC and later by Hattiesburg Associates Owner, LLC. Smith planned to build duplexes on that property. According to Smith, Terra Firma broke up old concrete trailer pads and arranged them on its property in a manner that created a flooding problem on Smith’s adjacent property. After Smith filed a grievance with the City of Hattiesburg, he and Terra Firma reached an agreement concerning drainage across his property. In the agreement, Terra Firma agreed to install a drainage line across Smith’s property and to secure and provide performance of the grade and dirt work necessary to install the drainage line. Terra Firma later sold its property to Campus Edge, which built an apartment complex on the property. According to Smith, during construction of the apartments, Campus Edge constructed what Smith refers to as a dam or berm on the line between Smith’s property and Campus Edge’s property. Smith complained that the berm caused water to flood his adjacent property. He also complained that Associates allowed the problem to persist after it purchased the property from Campus Edge. Smith filed a complaint in the circuit court alleging breach of contract by Terra Firma, Campus Edge, and Associates; and Smith also asserted claims of negligence against Campus Edge and Associates. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Terra Firma on Smith’s breach-of-contract claim. The circuit court later dismissed the breach-of-contract claims asserted against Campus Edge and Associates to the extent that those claims which arose from the alleged breach of contract by Terra Firma. The circuit court refused to grant Campus Edge’s and Associates’s motions for summary judgment on the negligence claims, and the court transferred the case to chancery court on the court’s own motion. In chancery court, Smith filed a second amended complaint removing Terra Firma as a defendant and withdrawing his breach-of-contract claims against Campus Edge and Associates. In response, Associates filed another motion for summary judgment, which the chancery court denied. Following a motion by Smith challenging the chancery court’s jurisdiction, the case was transferred by an agreed order back to circuit court. Once again in circuit court, Campus Edge and Associates each filed new motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted each defendant’s motion. Smith appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Res judicata Smith argues that Associates should have been estopped by the principle of res judicata from filing a second motion for summary judgment. However, an order denying summary judgment is neither final nor binding upon the court or successor courts. In addition, res judicata applies only to judgments which are final. A denial of a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment; therefore, the circuit court was not bound by the doctrine of res judicata to deny Associates’ motion. Also, M.R.C.P. 56 does not limit the number of motions for summary judgment that a party may file. Issue 2: Damages Smith argues that it was improper to grant summary judgment on the issue of damages and that it is for the jury to determine the amount of damages. In order for Smith’s claim to survive a motion for summary judgment, he needed to set forth specific facts sufficient to establish the existence of each element of negligence – duty, breach, causation, and damages. To withstand summary judgment, Smith needed to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Smith actually suffered any injury and whether that injury was proximately caused by Campus Edge or Associates. The circuit court applied the correct standard in considering damages and proximate cause for Associates, but the court erred in its application of the standard for Campus Edge. The circuit court held that Smith presented no evidence of an injury he sustained that was proximately caused by either Campus Edge’s or Associates’ breach of a duty owed to Smith. This ruling is correct as it relates to Associates. However, because Campus Edge constructed the dam/berm that Smith alleges caused water to flood onto his adjacent property, there is evidence that would allow a jury to find that Campus Edge breached the duty it owed to Smith.


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