Sweet v. TCI MS, Inc.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-01260-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01260-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-19-2010
Opinion Author: Waller, C.J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Ambuigity - Self-serving affidavit
Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson, P.J., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Graves, P.J.
Dissenting Author : Dickinson, J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion
Dissent Joined By : Randolph, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-18-2009
Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court
Judge: Ray Montgomery
Disposition: The Chancery Court of Hinds County granted summary judgment for TCI.
Case Number: G2008-334 W/4

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Dennis C. Sweet, III, and Kimberly Noel Sweet




THOMAS J. BELLINDER, DENNIS C. SWEET, III



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: TCI MS, Inc., TCI MS Investments, Inc. (TCI MS Investments, Inc.); and Michael V. Cory, In His Official Capacity As A Member and Principal in the Law Firm of Danks, Miller, Hamer & Cory REBECCA B. COWAN, WHITMAN B. JOHNSON, III  

    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 - Ambuigity - Self-serving affidavit

    Summary of the Facts: Dennis Sweet, III, and his wife, Kimberly Noel-Sweet, filed suit against TCI MS Investment, Inc., alleging breach of contract by TCI after it failed to purchase a building from the Sweets. The chancery court granted summary judgment for TCI. The Sweets appeal.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ambiguous contract Summary judgment is generally inappropriate for cases involving contractual ambiguity. The Sweets argue that the contingency clause in paragraph five of the contract is ambiguous insofar as it makes TCI’s contractual obligations contingent upon TCI obtaining financing satisfactory to it. The Sweets argue that the terms “obtaining financing” and “satisfactory” are ambiguous. “Obtaining financing,” according to the Sweets, is ambiguous because it does not specify the percentage or the amount of financing that TCI must attain. They argue that the term “satisfactory” likewise is subjective and open to various interpretations. The requirement that TCI obtain satisfactory financing served as a condition precedent to TCI’s obligations to complete the purchase. Provisions that make a contract subject to a condition, the performance of which must be satisfactory to the purchaser, are called “satisfaction clauses.” In this case, paragraph five unambiguously sets forth that TCI’s contractual obligations are contingent upon TCI obtaining financing satisfactory to it. TCI need only exercise good faith. Subjectivity does not render the clause ambiguous or unenforceable. Issue 2: Affidavit The affidavit of TCI President is TCI’s only evidentiary support for summary judgment. Conclusory, self-serving affidavits, unsupported by material facts relevant to the issue at hand, are not a sufficient basis for granting summary judgment. Here, the President’s affidavit does not show when or how TCI attempted to obtain financing, or why TCI’s available options were unsatisfactory. With a conclusory, self-serving affidavit as its only support for summary judgment, TCI failed to meet its burden its burden of production and persuasion.


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