Green Acres Trust v. Wells
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00564-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00564-COA ; 2009-CT-00564-SCT ; 2009-CT-00564-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-22-2011 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Removal of fence - Clean hands doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving and Ishee, JJ. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J. Dissent Joined By : Barnes, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial; Motion for Rehearing Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY; Motion for Rehearing |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-04-2009 Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: KENNETH M. BURNS Disposition: ORDERED GREEN ACRES TRUST TO REMOVE A FENCE, DENIED THE WELLSES’ REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPEED BUMPS, AND DISMISSED COUNTERCLAIM Case Number: 08-0030 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | The Green Acres Trust |
MATTHEW DANIEL WILSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | Dan Wells and Ann Wells | PRO SE |
|
|
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 - Removal of fence - Clean hands doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Dan and Ann Wells filed a petition against Ray Bazzill and Rick Bazzill seeking injunctive relief and damages. They alleged that the Bazzills installed speed bumps along the Wellses’ driveway easement, installed a locked gate across the driveway easement, constructed a rock wall or berm along the border separating the Wellses’ and Bazzills’ properties, and constructed a fence along the property border. The Bazzills filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging slander, libel, intentional interference with business relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At trial, The Green Acres Trust, the legal owner of the Bazzill family property, was substituted for the Bazzills. The chancellor ordered the speed bumps, the berm, and the locked gate to remain in place, but he ordered the fence removed. The chancellor dismissed all of Green Acres’ counterclaims. Green Acres appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Removal of fence Green Acres argues that the chancellor erred in ordering the fence removed. In determining that the Bazzills erected a spite fence, the chancellor relied upon the following: the Bazzills admitted that the fence served no useful purpose other than to limit their contact with Dan; although five families lived around the property, the Bazzills only erected the fence around the Wellses’ property; the fence borders the north and west sides of the Wellses’ property; the Bazzills left a small opening in the fence allowing the Wellses a view of the septic tank; and the fence was fourteen-feet high with green slats running through it. Clearly, there was animosity between both parties, which was a direct result of the Bazzills’ decision to install the gate, speed bumps, berm, and fence without consulting the Wellses. Thus, there was a sound basis upon which the chancellor’s decision may be affirmed. Issue 2: Clean hands doctrine The Bazzills argue that as the complaining party, the Wellses entered into the suit with unclean hands. The clean-hands doctrine prevents a complaining party from obtaining equitable relief in court when he is guilty of willful misconduct in the transaction at issue. Specifically, the Bazzills complain that: Dan wrongfully contacted Ray’s business associates; Dan taunted and threatened Ray, thereby intentionally inflicting emotional distress; and Dan unlawfully burned a speed bump belonging to Ray. There was insufficient evidence that Dan unlawfully burned a speed bump belonging to Ray. In regard to Dan’s alleged taunts and threats, the evidence is insufficient to rise to the level required to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress. In regard to the burned speed bump, the Bazzills did not specifically request that the speed bump be repaired. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
