Long Meadow Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., et al. v. Harland


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CT-01775-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01775-COA ; 2009-CA-01775-COA ; 2009-CT-01775-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-07-2012
Opinion Author: Waller, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Equitable estoppel
Judge(s) Concurring: Dickinson, P.J., Randolph, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Lamar and King, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Carlson, P.J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
Writ of Certiorari: Granted
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-12-2009
Appealed from: Lafayette County Chancery Court
Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr.
Disposition: HELD THAT THE SELLERS OF PROPERTY (SUB -DIVIDED IN PHASES) COULD CHANGE THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AS TO LATER PURCHASERS
Case Number: 2007-421

Note: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision which can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO70375.pdf .

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Long Meadow Homeowners' Association, Inc., William H. Arnold, Carol K. Arnold, Kenneth G. Barron, Sylvia D. Barron, Alan B. Cameron, Mary D. Cameron, Joseph B. Christman, Leah M. Christman, Clyde H. Coltharp, Mary Frances Coltharp, Rebecca Ann Culver, Tristan Denley, Kimberly Denley, Robert Byron Ellis, Suzete M. Ellis, Aubrey O'Neal Farrar, Cynthia Leigh Farrar, Charles D. Hufford, Alice C. Hufford, E. Jeff Justis, Sally V. Justis, Scott B. Lennard, Elaine A. Lennard, Timothy J. Mays, Carla Janene Mays, Glenn R. Parsons, Cheryl B. Parsons, James C. Propes, Charlotte C. Propes, Rick N. Rafinson, Bonnie S. Rafinson, Roderick N. Rafinson, Diana G. Rafinson, Jimmy Earl Shankle, Margaret Shankle, Robert C. Speth, Janet F. Speth, Allen Spurgeon, Debra Spurgeon, Julien Tatum and Christine B. Tatum




KENNETH A. RUTHERFORD



 

Appellee: Ernest C. Harland and Bonnie S. Harland TARA B. SCRUGGS LAWRENCE L. LITTLE  

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 - Equitable estoppel

Summary of the Facts: Ernest and Bonnie Harland filed suit, seeking to have a “corrected” warranty deed set aside; to vacate three lots from the official plat of Long Meadow subdivision; or to validate the protective covenants included with their original deed. The chancellor set aside the “corrected” warranty deed and validated the Harlands’ original covenants. The Long Meadow Homeowners’ Association appealed the chancellor’s judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The Long Meadow Defendants argue that the chancery court and the Court of Appeals failed to consider the testimony of certain landowners in light of PMZ Oil Co. v. Lucroy, 449 So. 2d 201 (Miss. 1984), and White Cypress Lakes Development Corp. v. Hertz, 541 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. 1989). Equitable estoppel is to be applied only in exceptional circumstances and must be based on public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and reasonableness. The principle giving rise to the remedy of equitable estoppel is that a wrongdoer is not entitled to enjoy the fruits of his fraud. The Long Meadow Defendants claim that they relied on the representations of the Leavells that all of Long Meadow Subdivision would be single-family residential. They claim that these representations induced them to buy property in Long Meadow and that they would not have purchased property but for these representations. Furthermore, the Long Meadow Defendants claim that they will suffer harm if the Harlands are allowed to build a church in the subdivision. In both PMZ and White Cypress Lakes, equitable estoppel was being asserted against the developers of the property at issue. In the present case, the Long Meadow Defendants are attempting to estop the Harlands, the grantees of a deed, from building a church – a use which the Harlands’ deed allows. The Harlands made no representations upon which the Long Meadow Defendants allegedly relied. The unfairness that courts have sought to prevent through equitable estoppel is simply not present here, where the Harlands have made no representations to the Long Meadow Defendants that they now seek to deny, nor have they induced the Long Meadow Defendants to take any action. The Harlands relied not only on oral representations but also on the land records for Long Meadow. These land records did not prohibit the construction of a church in Phase III. Furthermore, the Harlands negotiated for and received a deed that specifically allowed for the construction of a church on the lots purchased. Confirming the Harlands’ purchase will not work “unconscionable results,” as the Long Meadow Defendants’ argument necessarily indicates.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court