Atkins v. Golden Triangle Planning & Dev. Dist., Inc.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-00182-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-13-2010
Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Conduct committed within scope of employment - Respondeat superior
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Graves, P.J., Kitchens and Pierce, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Randolph, J., With Separate Written Opinion.
Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, Lamar and Chandler, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment; Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-18-2008
Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Lee J. Howard
Disposition: Upon both parties filing motions for summary judgment, the trial court denied Akins’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Golden Triangle. Consistent with these actions, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of Golden Triangle, thus dismissing Akins’s claims with prejudice.
Case Number: 2006-0502-CV

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Walter Akins d/b/a Akins Construction Company




J. NILES McNEEL



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Golden Triangle Planning & Development District, Inc. TOMMIE SULLIVAN CARDIN, WILLIAM M. GAGE, PAUL MICHAEL ELLIS  

    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: Contract - Conduct committed within scope of employment - Respondeat superior

    Summary of the Facts: Walter Akins d/b/a Akins Construction Company filed suit against Golden Triangle Planning and Development District, Inc., under the theory of respondeat superior, seeking, inter alia, $80,628, an amount that he claimed represented profits owed to him for constructing homes under the federal government’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which was administered locally by Golden Triangle. According to Akins, the profits to which he was entitled were embezzled by a Golden Triangle employee, Phyllis Tate. Upon both parties filing motions for summary judgment, the trial court denied Akins’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Golden Triangle. Akins appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Akins argues that Golden Triangle is liable because the embezzlement was committed in the scope of Tate’s employment. Golden Triangle argues that the acts committed by Tate were committed in furtherance of her own personal gain and not for the benefit of Golden Triangle or in the scope of her employment. An employee’s conduct as being in the scope of employment if it is of the kind he is employed to perform; it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master; and if force is intentionally used by the servant against another, the use of force is not unexpectable by the master. Conduct of a servant is not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master. The trial court found that Tate was employed for the purpose of transferring money from government entities into the accounts of builders. The trial court did not believe this scope of employment included stealing government money and routing it into her own personal account. The trial court did not err in granting Golden Triangle’s motion for summary judgment, because Akins’s claims fail as a matter of law. The trial court was correct in finding that Tate’s misdeeds were for her own personal gain and were of no benefit to Golden Triangle. She took government money and funneled it into the J-Max account. Later, this money was put into Tate’s personal account. Even if this money was earmarked for Akins, as a matter of law, Akins cannot be granted relief under a theory of respondeat superior. Given that Akins contracted with the homeowners themselves, and there exists no privity of contract between the parties, Akins is not entitled to relief from Golden Triangle.


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