Wright v. O'Daniel
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01531-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01531-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-01-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Doctrine of laches - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-7 - Section 15-1-9 - Section 15-1-39 - Constructive trust - Equitable lien - Mutual mistake Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Myers, P.J., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2009 Appealed from: Desoto County Chancer Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice Case Number: 07-10-2049 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Janet H. Wright |
WILLIAM F. SCHNELLER JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | James C. O'Daniel | JOSEPH M. SPARKMAN JR. |
|
|
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 - Doctrine of laches - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-7 - Section 15-1-9 - Section 15-1-39 - Constructive trust - Equitable lien - Mutual mistake |
| Summary of the Facts: | Janet Wright; her daughter, Patricia Wright; and her son-in-law, James O’Daniel, built a house together. Janet purchased the lot and held title with Patricia as joint tenants with right of survivorship. James and Patricia obtained a loan to finance a portion of the construction costs; however, the lender required that the house be titled in James’s and Patricia’s names. Consequently, Janet and Patricia executed a deed that conveyed the property to Patricia and James. Janet asked that her name be returned to the deed following the loan closing. After the loan closing, Patricia and James executed a second deed that conveyed the property to Janet, Patricia, and James as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The second deed retained James as a joint tenant and reduced Janet’s interest in the property from one-half to one-third. Janet noticed the error when she reviewed the deed, but she did not voice her concerns regarding the deed until Patricia and James separated. Janet filed suit against James four years after she discovered that the deed included James. Janet sought relief in the form of a constructive trust or an equitable lien. The chancellor found that Janet had failed to present sufficient proof to establish a constructive trust and that Janet’s claim was time-barred. Janet appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Doctrine of laches Janet argues that the chancellor erred in applying the doctrine of laches as the statute of limitations had yet to run on her claim. She argues that the ten-year statute of limitations applicable to actions to recover land applies to her claim. While laches may not be employed to shorten the limitations period, Janet’s argument that her claim is governed by sections 15-1-7 and 15-1-9 is incorrect. Sections 15-1-7 and 15-1-9 do not apply except where the person invoking them has been in adverse possession of the land against the true owner. There is no evidence that any of the parties adversely possessed the property, nor did Janet assert a claim of adverse possession in her complaint. Janet did, however, seek equitable relief in the form of a constructive trust. Section 15-1-39 is the statute of limitations applicable to actions involving constructive trusts. Janet testified that she discovered the reduction of her ownership interest in the property as early as November 2003. Janet filed her complaint seeking the imposition of a constructive trust on October 23, 2007, well within the ten-year limitations period applicable to constructive trusts. Thus, the chancellor erred in applying the doctrine of laches. Issue 2: Constructive trust Although Janet filed her claim within the applicable limitations period, she is not entitled to relief in the form of a constructive trust. A constructive trust is properly imposed when one who, by fraud, actual or constructive, by duress or abuse of confidence, by commission of wrong, or by any form of unconscionable conduct, artifice, concealment, or questionable means, or who in any way against equity and good conscience, either has obtained or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy. The record is void of any evidence of fraud, duress, or unconscionable conduct on James’s part. While Janet asserted in her testimony that she and Patricia had an implied 50/50 ownership agreement, Janet took no action to enforce her alleged interest or to correct the deed until it became apparent that James and Patricia were divorcing. Janet admitted in her testimony that she discovered that the deed included James as a joint owner of the property as early as November 2003. Janet did not contact the law firm that prepared the deed to inform it of the error. Instead, Janet contacted her attorney, who advised her to contact a real-estate attorney. However, Janet failed to do so and took no further action to correct the deed until Patricia and James filed for divorce. Thus, the chancellor did not err in refusing to impose a constructive trust. Issue 3: Equitable lien Janet argues that the chancellor erred in refusing to place an equitable lien on the property. Equitable liens, like constructive trusts, are designed to prevent unjust enrichment. Since James was not unjustly enriched, Janet is not entitled to the imposition of an equitable lien. Issue 4: Mutual mistake Janet argues that the chancellor erred in refusing to reform the deed on the ground of mutual mistake. In an action to reform a deed based on a mistake theory, the petitioner must demonstrate a mutual mistake among the parties or a unilateral mistake in combination with fraud or inequitable conduct on the part of the benefitting party. Janet reviewed the deed. The deed clearly reflected that James retained an ownership interest in the property, and Janet took note of that fact. However, Janet failed to take action to correct the deed other than soliciting the advice of her personal attorney, which she did not follow. While Janet may have intended to share an ownership interest in the property with Patricia alone, this constitutes only a unilateral mistake, and Janet has failed to prove fraud or other unconscionable conduct on the part of James that would entitle her to relief. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
