Lonnie Faulkner v. Thomas Karl Wilcher
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2006-CA-01133-COA
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT OF MAZIE WILCHER, DECEASED:
APPELLANTS
LONNIE FAULKNER, ZACHARY FAULKNER AND
BENJAMIN FAULKNER
v.
THOMAS KARL WILCHER, EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF MAZIE WILCHER, DECEASED, AND
CONNIE WILCHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEES
6/8/2006
HON. WILLIAM JOSEPH LUTZ
LEAKE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
SAMUEL S. GOZA
ROBERT L. GOZA
ALAN D. RHEA
DEXTER C. NETTLES
CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE.
AFFIRMED - 11/13/2007
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS AND CARLTON, JJ.
MYERS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Lonnie Faulkner, Zachary Faulkner and Bejamin Faulkner (the Faulkners) appeal the Leake
County Chancery Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Mazie Wilcher (the
Estate), the executor of the Estate, Thomas Karl Wilcher, and Connie Wilcher, which set aside and
cancelled a purported conveyance of certain property located in Leake County. Alternatively, the
Faulkners seek a refund of their expended purchase price for the real estate. Finding no error in the
decision of the chancery court, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
Mazie Wilcher died testate in 1991, leaving as part of her estate a twelve-acre plot of real
property located in Leake County, subject to a life estate in favor of Connie Wilcher, with the
remainder devised to Thomas Karl Wilcher. Although Mazie Wilcher died testate, her will was not
submitted for probate until February 19, 2003. Before the will was submitted for probate, however,
Mazzie Wilcher’s daughter, Connie Wilcher, conveyed by deed the real property to the Faulkners,
her blood relatives, on January 4, 2003, subject to her life estate. The Faulkners took title to the real
property, without a title examination, and allegedly unaware of the unprobated will of Mazie
Wilcher. Sometime later in that month, Thomas Karl Wilcher became aware of the land deed
transfer and objected. As a result, the Faulkners reconveyed the property to Connie Wilcher.
However, shortly thereafter, Connie Wilcher again conveyed the land to the Faulkners.
¶3.
On February 18, 2003, Thomas Karl Wilcher finally filed Mazie Wilcher’s will for probate
and was appointed executor of the Estate. Upon the filing of the will, it was also determined that
Thomas Karl Wilcher was named trustee of the property and given the absolute authority to sell,
lease or assign Connie Wilcher’s interest. Thomas Karl Wilcher sought to set aside and cancel the
deed transfer to the Faulkners. The chancery court granted Thomas Karl Wilcher’s request, and
granted summary judgment in favor of him and the Estate, thereby setting aside the land transfer to
the Faulkners. The chancellor found that there was a break in the chain of title, and that the
Faulkners were on notice of the possible break because the land deed stated clearly, “THIS
INSTRUMENT IS PREPARED WITHOUT TITLE EXAMINATION.” The chancellor then held
that this break in the chain of title rendered the property unmarketable and found that Thomas Karl
Wilcher and the Estate were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Faulkners were not
2
returned their purchase price of $10,799.00.
¶4.
Aggrieved, the Faulkners appeal, requesting review of the chancellor’s grant of summary
judgment setting aside the land transfer or seeking a return of the monies expended for the property’s
purchase price. The Faulkners challenge the chancellor’s finding that they were not innocent
purchasers as a matter of law, and argue that the affirmative defenses of laches and estoppel apply
so as to prevent the setting aside of the land transfer. Finding no error in the grant of summary
judgment, we affirm the decision of the chancery court. However, because the issue of the
Faulkners’ reimbursement for the purchase price was never brought before the lower court, we
decline review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
An appellate court conducts a de novo review of a trial judge’s grant of a motion for summary
judgment, and “examines all the evidentiary matters before it--admissions in pleadings, answers to
interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc.” City of Jackson v. Sutton, 797 So. 2d 977, 979 (¶7)
(Miss. 2001). The moving party has the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material
facts exists, and the non-moving party must be given the benefit of the doubt concerning the
existence of a material fact. Id. “If no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should be entered in that party’s favor.”
Monsanto Co. v. Hall, 912 So. 2d 134, 136 (¶5) (Miss. 2005).
DISCUSSION
I.
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE FAULKNERS, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE
AND CANCELLING THE LAND DEED TRANSFER
¶6.
The chancellor set aside and cancelled the deed from Connie Wilcher to the Faulkners,
finding that a break in the chain of title rendered the title unmarketable. The chancellor further found
3
that the Faulkners were not innocent purchasers of the property, and denied their request for relief
based on the bona fide purchaser defense. The Faulkners contend that they were, in fact, innocent
purchasers because they were not aware that Mazie Wilcher had a will at her death. Thus, the
Faulkners argue that as innocent, bona fide purchasers of the property, they are protected against
having the deed set aside.
¶7.
“Our law seeks to protect bona fide purchasers for value without notice and defines a bona
fide purchaser as ‘one who has in good faith paid a valuable consideration without notice of the
adverse rights of another.’” Simmons v. Mississippi Transp. Comm’n, 717 So. 2d 300, 303 (¶13)
(Miss. 1998) (Giesbrecht v. Smith, 397 So. 2d 73, 77 (Miss. 1981)). But, a purchaser of land has the
duty
to examine all deeds and conveyances previously executed and placed of record by
his grantor--either immediately or remote--if such deeds or conveyances in any way
affect his title. And if in any such deed or conveyance there is contained any recital
sufficient to put a reasonably prudent man on inquiry as to the sufficiency of the title,
then he is charged with notice of all those facts which could and would be disclosed
by a diligent and careful investigation.
Simmons, 717 So. 2d at 303 (¶13) (quoting Bedford v. Kravis, 622 So. 2d 291, 295 (Miss. 1993)).
¶8.
The chancellor found that the Faulkners were on notice of the possibility of a break in the
chain of title, at least by January 4, 2003, due to the statement appearing in the deed noticing that the
instrument was prepared without title examination. Thus, the Faulkners were not found to be bona
fide purchasers and were divested of this defense. In finding that the Faulkners were not innocent
purchasers, the chancellor rejected their defense of protection by the doctrines of laches or equitable
estoppel.
¶9.
Both defenses of laches and equitable estoppel are similar. A purchaser can raise the
affirmative defense of laches when “one party neglects to assert a right or claim, and such neglect,
when taken together with any lapses of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse
4
party, operates as a bar in a court of equity.” Bailey v. Estate of Kemp, 955 So. 2d 777, 784 (¶28)
(Miss. 2007). The party asserting the defense of laches must show: “(1) a delay in asserting a right
or claim; (2) that the delay was not excusable; and (3) that there was undue prejudice to the party
against whom the claim is asserted.” Id. at 784 (¶29). In order to assert a claim of equitable
estoppel, one must show a “(1) belief and reliance on some representation; (2) change of position
as a result of the representation; and (3) detriment or prejudice caused by the change of position.”
Mound Bayou Sch. Dist. v. Cleveland Sch. Dist., 817 So. 2d 578, 583 (¶15) (Miss. 2002) (citing
Covington County v. Page, 456 So. 2d 739, 741 (Miss. 1984)).
¶10.
The Faulkners assert that the Wilchers knowingly withheld Mazie Wilcher’s will from
probate and wilfully concealed its existence, thereby fostering the Faulkner’s reasonable reliance on
the fact that the property was marketable before its transfer. As a result, the Faulkners assert that
they were prejudiced by the Wilchers’ concealment of the will because the concealment caused the
lapse in the title.
¶11.
Ordinarily, the Faulkners’ belief and reliance on Connie Wilcher’s implicit representation
that she owned the subject property before the conveyance would qualify for the defense of laches
or equitable estoppel. However, the chancellor found that the Faulkners’ reliance was overcome by
their duty to investigate the title to the property. Thus, the court held that neither defense applies so
as to qualify the Faulkners into the category of innocent purchasers of the realty. We agree. The
Faulkners were charged with the duty to investigate the title to the property before purchasing the
realty and the failure to ensure the property’s marketability is fatal to the Faulkners’ claim.
¶12.
“A break in the chain of title renders the title to the realty unmarketable.” Ferrara v. Walters,
919 So. 2d 876, 883 (¶17) (Miss. 2005). Having found that the Faulkners were not innocent
purchasers, we agree with the chancellor that the deed must be set aside. Viewing the evidence in
5
the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made, the Faulkners, we find
that there was no genuine issue of material fact left for the court to decide. Therefore, we affirm the
chancellor’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Thomas Karl Wilcher and the Estate. The
decision to set aside the land transfer was proper.
II.
WHETHER THE FAULKNERS ARE DUE A REFUND OF THE PURCHASE
PRICE OF THE PROPERTY AFTER THE TRANSFER DEED WAS SET
ASIDE
¶13.
Upon finding that the Faulkners were not innocent purchasers of the property, the chancellor
granted summary judgment in favor of Thomas Karl Wilcher and the Estate, thereby setting aside
the land transfer. However, within the order of the chancellor, no mention is given to the return of
the purchase price. On appeal, the Faulkners seek a refund of their purchase price, arguing that the
failure to return the purchase price results in unjust enrichment. Thomas Karl Wilcher and the Estate
argue that the chancellor did not err in canceling the deeds without ordering a refund of the purchase
price as a condition of the relief. In support of their position, Thomas Karl Wilcher and the Estate
cite to certain discovery revealing that the purchase price was paid into a bank account in the name
of Connie Wilcher and the mother of the Faulkners, Hilda Denne. Further, the Wilchers point us to
a settlement agreement reached between the Faulkners and the Wilchers for which the Faulkners
were to receive certain items in lieu of refunding the entire purchase price of the property.
¶14.
Having reviewed the record, we can find no evidence in support of either the Faulkners’ or
the Wilchers’ or Estate’s position. In fact, because the issue before the chancery court centered upon
whether the Faulkners were the record title holders of the property, the issue of the return of the
purchase price was never brought before or adjudicated in the lower court. Therefore, because the
issue of the return of the purchase price of the property was not raised in the lower court, review is
barred. Coleman v. State, 772 So. 2d 1101, 1103 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Accordingly, we
6
dismiss this argument and decline review.
¶15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF LEAKE COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANTS.
KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND
CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.