Nelson v. Holliday, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00101-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-20-2012 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Protective covenants - Modular home - Manufactured home Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-23-2010 Appealed from: Pearl River County Chancery Court Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr. Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEES Case Number: 08-0154-GN-D |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Betty Marie Nelson and Earl Lavon Nelson |
TADD PARSONS
DAWN SMITH |
|
|
| Appellee: | Hudson Holliday and Darrin Harris | JOSEPH H. MONTGOMERY | ||
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 - Protective covenants - Modular home - Manufactured home |
| Summary of the Facts: | Hudson Holliday and Darrin Harris, the property developers, seek to enforce protective covenants on the property. They claim the current landowners placed a disallowed “manufactured” home on the property. Betty Marie and Earl Lavon Nelson claim that they placed a “modular” home on their property, which was within the protective covenants. After both parties filed motions for summary judgment, the chancellor granted summary judgment in favor of Holliday and Harris without a hearing. The Nelsons appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue in this case is whether the Nelsons’ residence is considered a “modular” home or a “manufactured” home. The chancellor determined that it was a “manufactured” home and granted Holliday and Harris’s motion for summary judgment. The Nelsons argue that the chancellor’s summary judgment should be reversed because there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Holliday and Harris argue that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the Nelsons’ residence is not on a permanent foundation so it cannot be determined to be “modular.” In support of their pleading, the Nelsons offered a letter from the Chief Deputy State Fire Marshal to the seller of the residence, which stated that “the noted Franklin-built structure, bearing the serial number ALFRH-038-13636 AB, is considered a modular home.” The Nelsons also offered approximately twenty-three pages of engineering plans and specifications for the residence and a letter from Holliday stating that “it is permissible to construct or place a modular home on the property.” Holliday and Harris offered what appears to be a bid to remove a “mobile” home. However, the “affidavit” does not identify the Nelsons’ residence as the “mobile” home that is to be removed. Holliday and Harris also attached the Nelsons’ responses to requests for admissions. While several of the responses seem to indicate that the home placed on the Nelsons’ property was not permanently affixed to the land, the response to requests no. 19 and 20 seem to support the Nelsons’ argument that the home was a “modular” home and thus permissible to be placed on the property. Considering all of the evidence submitted, there is a genuine issue of a material fact in dispute over whether the residence was a “modular” or “manufactured” home. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
