Delta Housing Develp. Corp. v. Johnson
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-02127-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-02127-COA ; 2008-CT-02127-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-06-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Adoption of subdivision plat - Necessary party - M.R.C.P. 19 - Findings of special master - M.R.C.P. 53(g)(2) - Res judicata - Section 27-45-23 - Sale for non-payment of taxes - Section 27-43-3 - Equitable estoppel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-21-2008 Appealed from: Bolivar County Chancery Court Judge: Jon M. Barnwell Disposition: JUDGMENT OF EJECTMENT AGAINST DELTA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Case Number: 97-0290 |
|
| 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: | Delta Housing Development Corporation |
ALSEE MCDANIEL |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mabel Johnson | DEREK D. HOPSON, MELISSA SELMAN MARTIN, DREW MCLEMORE MARTIN, DAVID NEIL MCCARTY | ||
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 - Adoption of subdivision plat - Necessary party - M.R.C.P. 19 - Findings of special master - M.R.C.P. 53(g)(2) - Res judicata - Section 27-45-23 - Sale for non-payment of taxes - Section 27-43-3 - Equitable estoppel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mabel Johnson filed a petition against Delta Housing Development Corporation, Herman Johnson, and Alfreta Johnson, which requested a temporary injunction be issued restraining Delta from carrying on development and construction operations on her real property. The chancery court issued a temporary restraining order that same day. Mabel filed an amended petition for permanent injunction, restoration of land, order confirming title, and monetary damages. Delta claimed that the exact boundaries of the property described in Mabel’s petition were in dispute, and it pleaded the affirmative defenses of res judicata and laches. According to Delta, because the chancery court had entered a final decree in 1995, adjudicating its predecessor’s title, Mabel’s action was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Delta also claimed that Mabel was aware of the development project as early as 1994, and because she took no legal action to assert and/or secure her rights, her action was barred under the doctrine of laches. Delta filed a counterclaim against Mabel, alleging, inter alia, that as a result of the TRO, it suffered losses in excess of $50,000. Delta sought compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000. According to the record, Delta continued construction after the TRO expired. After a trial, the chancery court entered a judgment granting Mabel’s claim for ejectment and order confirming title. The chancery court directed Delta to remove all infrastructure from her property. Delta appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Adoption of subdivision plat Delta argues that because a subdivision plat was adopted by the City of Mound Bayou in 1947 and duly recorded in the land records of Bolivar County, a presumption of validity exists in its favor. Delta also argues that the City of Mound Bayou is a necessary party to this action pursuant to M.R.C.P. 19. The minutes reflecting the City of Mound Bayou’s adoption of the subdivision plat in 1947 could not be found. Thus, there is no way of knowing whether the City’s action conformed to the procedural formalities required by law. However, whatever presumptive validity might have existed with the description of the adopted plat’s west-boundary line, Mabel successfully overcame it by proving that the description was in error. Delta filed no objection, as set forth under M.R.C.P. 53(g)(2), to the findings of the special master appointed by the chancery court to locate the true boundary line between the two properties. Therefore, Delta waived any objections it may have had with the factual conclusions submitted by the special master and accepted by the chancery court in this matter. The court ultimately concluded that Mabel and her predecessors-in-title were the rightful owners of the strip of land in dispute. The decision by the chancery court effectively means that the City of Mound Bayou, in 1947, adopted a subdivision plat which contained an erroneous legal description, encompassing Mabel’s east-property line. Because one may not subdivide and convey or dedicate land one does not own, the City of Mound Bayou acted without legal authority in that instance. As to Delta’s contention that the City of Mound Bayou was a necessary party, the City did not have an interest, actual or mistaken, with this strip of land. When this action began, either Delta or Mabel owned it. Issue 2: Res judicata Delta argues that Mabel’s action should be barred by res judicata, because pursuant to section 27-45-23, a conveyance to a purchaser at tax sales by the chancery clerk, after the period of redemption under law, vests in the purchaser a perfect title with the immediate right of possession. Thus, the final judgment entered by the chancery court in 1995 vested perfect title in Herman and in subsequent conveyances. Not only was Mabel not made a party to that action, she clearly did not receive proper notice of it as required by section 27-43-3. Further, Mabel submitted ample evidence that her property has never been the subject of delinquent taxes; accordingly, this strip of land was not liable to sale for non-payment of taxes. Issue 3: Equitable estoppel Delta argues that a balancing of the equities in this matter clearly weighs in its favor, i.e., the issuance of the injunction would cause Delta to suffer loss far greater than the loss Mabel would suffer if the injunction were not issued, and submits that the chancery court erred when it rejected its defenses of laches and/or equitable estoppel. The general rule is that a landowner is entitled to an injunction directing the removal of a trespassing structure on his land erected thereon by the owner of adjoining land. The facts that the aggrieved owner suffers little or no damage from the trespass, that the wrongdoer acted in good faith and would be put to disproportionate expense by removal of the trespassing structures, and that neighborly conduct as well as business judgment would require acceptance of compensation in money for the land appropriated, are ordinarily not reasons for denying an injunction. Laches arises from a complaining party’s failure to assert a right or claim for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party. Equitable estoppel comes into play in situations where a party has changed his or her position in reliance upon the conduct or representation of another and as a result suffers detriment or prejudice caused by the change of position. Here, the chancellor found that Mabel did not act with unreasonable delay in bringing her action. According to the chancellor, regardless of which point in time Mabel first learned of the development project, she had no idea at that time that the structures in question would be placed on her property. When Mabel discovered that Delta was claiming ownership to the strip of land she believed rightfully belonged to her, she acted as expeditiously as could be expected of a person in her situation to obtain the information necessary to protect her interests. There is no merit to Delta’s contention that Mabel should be estopped to complain of the encroachment. Nothing in the record remotely suggests that Delta changed its position in reliance upon Mabel’s conduct. Indeed, before construction began, Mabel told Delta not to interfere with her property. Apart from Mabel’s admonitions, Delta was put on notice by others who were familiar with the two properties that it was mistaken as to the true property line. Yet, rather than exercise precaution, Delta proceeded forward. This issue is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
