Brown v. Anderson
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01827-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2012 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Contract - Release - Estoppel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., concurs in part and in the result Procedural History: Directed Verdict Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-05-2010 Appealed from: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Malcolm Harrison Disposition: GRANTED A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES Case Number: 251-03-155 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Arthur Lee Brown and Linda Jackson Brown |
DAVID NEIL MCCARTY
BRANDI DENTON GATEWOOD |
|
|
| Appellee: | James Anderson, Jr. and Laura Anderson | PIETER JOHN TEEUWISSEN LARA E. GILL | ||
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 - Contract - Release - Estoppel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Arthur and Linda Brown sued James and Laura Anderson for breach of contract and tortious breach of contract stemming from the Browns’ purchase of the Andersons’ house. After the Browns presented their case to a jury, the court granted the Andersons’ motion for a directed verdict. The Browns appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Browns argue the circuit judge erroneously relied on the release to hold that they failed to create a jury question on whether the Andersons had breached the contract. However, the circuit judge was correct that Arthur was bound both by the contract, wherein he agreed he “accepts property ‘as is,’” and by the release, which stated he had inspected the home’s systems and found them in “good working order.” Because Arthur acquiesced to the fulfillment of the contract’s contingencies that the house would be in good working order at closing, he could not later assert an inconsistent position that the Andersons had breached the contract by failing to convey the house in working order. Parties to a contract have an inherent duty to read the terms of a contract prior to signing; that is, a party may neither neglect to become familiar with the terms and conditions and then later complain of lack of knowledge, nor avoid a written contract merely because he or she failed to read it or have someone else read and explain it. The contract gave Arthur the opportunity to have the home inspected before closing to ensure it was in good working order. While the release expressly relieved only Ruth Epps Realty Inc. from any further liability and responsibility, Arthur represented in the release that he had personally inspected the house and found all of the systems to be in good working order. Having acquiesced to the working order of the home in order to go through with the closing, Arthur was estopped from denying the veracity of his representations made at closing. The Browns further argue the release could not have been used against Linda’s claim for breach of contract because Linda did not sign the release. But this argument overlooks the crucial fact that Linda did not enter the contract with the Andersons. The contract solely listed “Arthur Lee Brown” as the purchaser. Because Linda was not a party or third-party beneficiary to the contract, she had no right to maintain a cause of action based on the contract. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
