Stewart v. Bridge Props., LLC
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00305-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00305-COA ; 2009-CT-00305-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-28-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Accord and satisfaction - Viability of lease - Uninhabitability - Mitigation of damages Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Griffis, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Lee, P.J., and Barnes, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-10-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF BRIDGE PROPERTIES Case Number: 251-08-523 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Cynthia A. Stewart, P.A. |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Bridge Properties, LLC | WILLIAM STACY KELLUM 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 - Accord and satisfaction - Viability of lease - Uninhabitability - Mitigation of damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Cynthia Stewart, an attorney, abandoned premises that she had leased from Bridge Properties, LLC, Bridge Properties successfully sued her in the Hinds County County Court for rent for the months remaining on the contract. A judgment was entered against Stewart in the amount of $35,263.40. Stewart appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Stewart appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Accord and satisfaction Stewart argues that she successfully established the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction. There are four elements that must be satisfied in order for an accord and satisfaction to exist: something of value must be offered in full satisfaction of a demand; the offer must be accompanied by acts and declarations that amount to a condition that if the thing is accepted, it is accepted in satisfaction; the party offered the thing of value must understand that if he takes it, he takes subject to such conditions; and the party offered the item must actually accept the item. Here, there is no reason to reverse the judgment of the county court on this point. Bridge testified that the July 22, 2005, check was tendered to pay the past due amount of rent that was owed, not to release Stewart from the lease. The county court was within its rights in finding Bridge’s testimony regarding the check more compelling than Stewart’s. Issue 2: Viability of lease Stewart argues that the lease attached to Bridge Properties’ complaint was insufficient because it did not adequately describe the leased premises. While the property description in the lease did not describe the leased premises, the signature page containing Stewart’s signature clearly stated the address of the property. Furthermore, the lease was offered into evidence at trial without objection from Stewart. Issue 3: Uninhabitability Stewart and her witnesses essentially testified as to the uninhabitability of the premises, while Bridge Properties’ witnesses testified to the contrary. There is no documentary evidence to support Stewart’s assertions, and the county court was entitled to find Bridge Properties’ witnesses more compelling. Issue 4: Mitigation of damages Bridge testified that he contacted a realtor and put up a “for rent” sign in an effort to rent the premises after Stewart’s departure. The county court did not err in finding that Bridge Properties acted to mitigate the damages caused by Stewart’s early departure. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
