Central Healthcare Services, P.A. v. The Citizens Bank of Philadelphia
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CA-00612-COA
CENTRAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES, P.A.
AND WENDALL HARRELL
APPELLANTS/
CROSS-APPELLEES
v.
CITIZENS BANK OF PHILADELPHIA,
MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
APPELLEE/
CROSS-APPELLANT
03/13/2007
HON. JANACE H. GOREE
LEAKE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
J. EDWARD RAINER
LORA SUZANNE GIPSON
JAMES W. CRAIG
STRATTON BULL
BENJAMIN LYLE ROBINSON
CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
TITLE CONFIRMED IN PURCHASER OF
REAL ESTATE
AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL AND
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED
AND REMANDED IN PART ON CROSSAPPEAL - 06/30/2009
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., IRVING AND ROBERTS, JJ.
ROBERTS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This appeal centers on a discrepancy between language in a granting clause and what
was termed as the “acquisition clause” of a quitclaim deed. The events that led to the
necessity for and transfer of that quitclaim deed will be described in greater detail below.
In any event, Central Healthcare Services, P.A. (CHS) executed a quitclaim deed, and
pursuant to the granting clause of that quitclaim deed, CHS gave Wendall Harrell all of its
interest in two portions of property. However, the acquisition clause of the quitclaim deed
did not mention one of the two portions of property. As will be discussed, Citizens Bank of
Philadelphia, Mississippi (the Bank) had an interest in both portions of property, and it filed
suit to confirm its ownership of the portion that was not mentioned in the acquisition clause.
CHS and Harrell denied that it transferred its ownership in the property at issue.
Additionally, CHS and Harrell filed four counterclaims against the Bank.
¶2.
After trial, the Leake County Chancery Court held that the language in the granting
clause controlled over the language in the acquisition clause. Consequently, the chancellor
held that the Bank owned both tracts mentioned in the granting clause. However, the
chancellor declined to order CHS or Harrell to pay a deficiency amount, indemnification, or
attorneys’ fees. The chancellor also denied all of CHS’s and Harrell’s counterclaims.
¶3.
CHS and Harrell appeal. They claim that the chancellor erred when she found that
the quitclaim deed transferred the property at issue. CHS and Harrell also argue that the
chancellor erred when she denied their counterclaims. Finding no error, we affirm on direct
appeal. The Bank cross-appeals and argues that the chancellor erred when she declined to
award a judgment for the deficiency amount, indemnification, or attorneys’ fees. After
careful consideration, for reasons that will be expressed in greater detail below, we find that
the chancellor erred when she denied the Bank’s request for attorneys’ fees and the Bank’s
request for indemnification. Accordingly, we reverse and remand on cross-appeal.
2
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶4.
For some time prior to September 2000, Harrell had been acquiring piecemeal sections
of property situated at the intersection of Highway 16 and Highway 35 in Leake County,
Mississippi. Harrell’s goal was to compile those sections into a larger property and then
develop a commercial shopping center on that property. The Bank had financed Harrell’s
previous acquisitions.
¶5.
In September 2000, the Bank loaned Harrell approximately $950,000. That figure
represented the consolidation of Harrell’s previous loans. Harrell gave the Bank a deed of
trust as collateral for the September 2000 loan. Sections of property described as “the
Crawford lot” and “the Hardage lot” were included in the description of the property
collateralized by that deed of trust.1 Both the Crawford lot and the Hardage lot – then owned
by CHS – were encumbered by debts prior to the September 2000 loan. Those outstanding
debts were later satisfied by the proceeds of the September 2000 loan.
¶6.
Harrell later defaulted on the September 2000 loan, and after extending Harrell’s loan
payments, the Bank eventually foreclosed on the September 2000 deed of trust.2 The Bank
1
Harrell’s attorney provided the Bank with a preliminary certificate of title. The
preliminary certificate of title indicated that Harrell would acquire the title to the Hardage
lot, which was owned by CHS. Harrell’s daughter, Blanche Gregory, was the sole owner
of CHS.
2
During the foreclosure proceedings, Harrell conveyed what the Bank terms “the
entire series of parcels, including the Crawford lot” to what the Bank calls a “straw man”
entity. That entity immediately declared bankruptcy. The Bank acquired an order from the
bankruptcy court allowing the foreclosure proceedings to continue.
3
was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale. The Bank then sold the property to an
entity called “the Whitten Group.” However, the Whitten Group determined that Harrell did
not own the title to the Crawford lot when he provided the Bank with the deed of trust.
¶7.
Harrell’s attorney, Roy Wright, approached Gregory, the principal owner of CHS,
regarding whether she would execute a quitclaim deed transferring CHS’s interest in the
Crawford lot to the Whitten Group. Gregory agreed. Wright drafted the quitclaim deed and
CHS executed it. However, there was a discrepancy in the quitclaim deed. The language in
the granting clause contained descriptions of the Crawford lot and the Hardage lot. However,
the drafting attorney included language that he termed as an “acquisition clause.” 3 The
acquisition clause only described the Hardage lot. When confronted with the discrepancy,
CHS refused to execute a deed to correct it. Instead, CHS claimed it never intended to
convey the Crawford lot to the Whitten Group and that it never conveyed the Crawford lot
to Harrell. Additionally, Harrell claimed he never had title to the Crawford lot.
¶8.
In October 2004, the Bank filed a complaint to confirm its ownership of the Crawford
lot and to remove the cloud on the title to that property. The Bank initially named CHS as
the sole defendant, but it later amended its complaint and added Harrell as a defendant. CHS
and Harrell filed counterclaims against the Bank for abuse of process, malicious prosecution,
defamation, and for damages as set forth by the Litigation Accountability Act of 1988. Miss.
Code Ann. §§ 11-55-1, -15 (Rev. 2002). CHS and Harrell also requested $3,000,000 in
3
For purposes of this opinion, we borrow the drafting attorney’s description of the
language at issue.
4
punitive damages.
¶9.
The parties went to trial over the course of two days in April 2006 and one day during
October 2006. In March 2007, the chancellor rendered her opinion and final judgment. The
chancellor found that the Whitten Group owned the title to the Crawford lot.4 However, the
chancellor declined to order CHS or Harrell to pay the Bank damages for the deficiency
amount, indemnification, or attorneys’ fees. Additionally, the chancellor dismissed CHS’s
and Harrell’s counterclaims and their request for attorneys’ fees.
¶10.
CHS and Harrell appeal. They claim the chancellor erred when she: (1) found that the
quitclaim deed conveyed CHS’s interest in the Crawford lot, (2) dismissed their
counterclaims, and (3) declined to award them attorneys’ fees. The Bank cross-appeals and
claims the chancellor erred when she: (1) declined to award it attorneys’ fees, (2) declined
to award it a judgment for the deficiency amount, and (3) declined to award it a judgment to
indemnify the Bank for the money it had paid the Whitten Group to repurchase the Crawford
lot.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶11.
“This Court follows a limited standard of review when addressing appeals from a
chancery court.” Kennedy v. Anderson, 881 So. 2d 340, 345 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).
“We shall not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless the chancellor was manifestly
4
The chancellor’s decision amounted to a finding that the Bank owned the title to the
property because the Bank had repurchased the Crawford lot from the Whitten Group after
the Whitten Group discovered the defect in its title to the Crawford lot.
5
wrong, clearly erroneous, or there was an application by the chancellor of an erroneous legal
standard.” Id. “Questions concerning construction of contracts are questions of law.”
McMurphy v. Three Rivers Planning & Dev. Dist., Inc., 966 So. 2d 192, 195 (¶12) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2007). “We review questions of law pursuant to a de novo standard.” Id.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ON DIRECT APPEAL
I.
¶12.
OWNERSHIP OF THE TITLE TO THE CRAWFORD LOT
In this issue, CHS and Harrell claim the chancellor erred when she concluded that the
quitclaim deed included CHS’s interest in the Crawford lot. According to CHS and Harrell,
the chancellor should have awarded CHS title to the Crawford lot. We disagree.
¶13.
This issue requires that we resolve a dispute in the construction of a quitclaim deed.
Our purpose under the circumstances is to “ascertain and effectuate the parties’ intent.”
Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So. 2d 349, 351 (Miss. 1990). To do so, we will first
examine the language contained within the “four corners” of the quitclaim deed. Id. at 352.
If the quitclaim deed is clear or unambiguous, our analysis ends. Id.
¶14.
We cannot find that the quitclaim deed is clear or unambiguous. Surveyor James
Townsend testified at trial. Townsend surveyed the property at issue after the Bank
purchased it at the foreclosure sale and then sold it to the Whitten Group. According to
Townsend, the Crawford lot fell under the legal description in the granting clause of the 2004
quitclaim deed. However, Wright’s “acquisition clause” only mentioned the Hardage lot.
Under the circumstances, we are directed to proceed to the next tier of the three-tiered
process regarding resolution of such disputes. This next tier involves “implementation of
6
applicable ‘canons’ of contract construction.” Id.
¶15.
“[I]f the wording of the deed is ambiguous, the practical construction placed thereon
by the parties will have much weight in determining the meaning.” Thornhill v. System
Fuels, Inc., 523 So. 2d 983, 990 (Miss. 1988). “[C]onsideration of the totality of the
circumstances attendant the devising of an instrument may help reveal the parties’ intent.”
Pursue Entergy, 558 So. 2d at 353. The circumstances and behavior of the parties in the case
at bar after the original transactions clearly show that CHS – through Gregory – intended for
the quitclaim deed to transfer CHS’s interest in the Crawford lot.
¶16.
Gregory originally acquired the Crawford lot from her father, Harrell. Gregory had
an outstanding loan with the Bank. The Crawford lot was collateral for that loan. From 1995
through 1999, Gregory’s company, CHS, provided the Bank with financial reports. Those
financial reports consistently listed the Crawford lot as an asset.
¶17.
The Bank loaned Harrell $950,000 in September 2000. Harrell paid off CHS’s debt
on the Crawford lot. Prior to that payment, Harrell had never paid any portion of CHS’s debt
on the Crawford lot. Gregory did not list the Crawford lot as an asset in CHS’s 2000
financial report to the Bank. Gregory never again listed the Crawford lot as an asset.
¶18.
Additionally, CHS did business out of a building situated on the Crawford lot. After
September 2000, CHS vacated that building. Harrell subsequently demolished that building,
re-graded the site, and made it indistinguishable from the rest of Harrell’s development
property.
¶19.
When the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2004, Harrell transferred all of
7
the development property, including the Crawford lot, to a business entity called “Cotton
Place Corporation.” Harrell’s attempt to transfer the Crawford lot suggests that Harrell
believed he owned the Crawford lot. Additionally, the quitclaim deed was prepared solely
to resolve the question regarding ownership of the Crawford lot, as ownership of the Hardage
lot was not in question. Wright was the attorney who prepared the quitclaim deed. He
testified that the purpose of the 2004 quitclaim deed was to clear up the title on the Crawford
lot so the title could be transferred to the Whitten Group. Based on the totality of the
circumstances, we must conclude that the parties executed the quitclaim deed to reflect
Harrell’s ownership of the Crawford lot. Accordingly, we cannot find that the chancellor
erred when she resolved this issue in the Bank’s favor. This issue is without merit.
II.
COUNTERCLAIMS BY HARRELL AND CHS
A.
¶20.
ABUSE OF PROCESS
CHS and Harrell claim the chancellor erred when she declined to find the Bank liable
for abuse of process. According to CHS and Harrell, the Bank filed its complaint solely and
unjustifiably to force CHS to convey the Crawford lot. CHS and Harrell reason that the
Bank is, therefore, liable for abuse of process. We disagree.
¶21.
A cause of action for abuse of process has been described as follows:
[It] consists in the misuse or misapplication of a legal process to accomplish
some purpose not warranted or commanded by the writ. It is the malicious
perversion of a regularly issued civil or criminal process, for a purpose and to
obtain a result not lawfully warranted or properly attainable thereby, and for
which perversion an action will lie to recover the pecuniary loss sustained . .
..
8
Williamson v. Keith, 786 So. 2d 390, 393-94 (¶12) (Miss. 2001) (quoting State ex rel. Foster
v. Turner, 319 So. 2d 233, 236 (Miss. 1975)). “The elements of abuse of process are: (1) the
party made an illegal use of the process, a use neither warranted nor authorized by the
process, (2) the party had an ulterior motive, and (3) damage resulted from the perverted use
of process.” Franklin Collection Serv., Inc. v. Stewart, 863 So. 2d 925, 931 (¶18) (Miss.
2003) (quoting McLain v. West Side Bone and Joint Ctr., 656 So. 2d 119, 123 (Miss. 1995)).
According to the Mississippi Supreme Court, the “crucial element” of this cause of action
is “the intent to abuse the privileges of the legal system.” Ayles v. Allen, 907 So. 2d 300, 303
(¶10) (Miss. 2005) (citing McLain, 656 So. 2d at 123).
¶22.
We cannot find that the chancellor erred when she declined to find the Bank liable for
abuse of process. There was no evidence that the Bank illegally used civil process.
Likewise, there was no evidence that the Bank filed its complaint with an ulterior motive.
The Bank’s sole motive appears to have been acquiring title to the Crawford lot. At the very
least, there is no evidence that the Bank had any other motive. CHS and Harrell may have
had the subjective personal opinion that the Bank’s suit was unwanted or burdensome to
them, but that opinion – in and of itself – does not dictate the Bank’s motive in filing suit.
It follows that the chancellor did not abuse her discretion when she declined to find the Bank
liable of abuse of process. Accordingly, we find no merit to CHS’s and Harrell’s argument
under this issue.
B.
¶23.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
Next, CHS and Harrell claim the chancellor erred when she declined to find the Bank
9
liable for malicious prosecution. “An action for abuse of process differs from an action for
malicious prosecution in that the latter is concerned with maliciously causing process to
issue, while the former is concerned with the improper use of process after it has been
issued.” Moon v. Condere Corp., 690 So. 2d 1191, 1197 (Miss. 1997) (quoting Turner, 319
So. 2d at 236). The elements of a prima facie case of malicious prosecution are as follows:
(1) the institution or continuation of original judicial proceedings, either
criminal or civil;
(2) by, or at the insistence of the defendants;
(3) the termination of such proceeding in plaintiff’s favor;
(4) malice in instituting the proceeding;
(5) want of probable cause for the proceedings; and
(6) the suffering of injury or damages as a result of the action or prosecution.
Richard v. Supervalu, Inc., 974 So. 2d 944, 948-49 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). CHS and
Harrell were obligated to prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence. Van v.
Grand Casinos, Inc., 724 So. 2d 889, 891 (¶8) (Miss. 1998).
¶24.
We cannot find that the chancellor abused her discretion when she declined to find the
Bank liable for malicious prosecution. The Bank’s original action to confirm title did not
terminate in CHS’s or Harrell’s favor. There was no evidence that the Bank had any
malicious intent when it initiated its action to quiet title to the Crawford lot. Because CHS
and Harrell failed to prove each element of a prima facie case of malicious prosecution by
the preponderance of the evidence, we find no merit to this allegation.
10
C.
¶25.
DEFAMATION
Next, CHS and Harrell argue that the chancellor erred when she declined to find the
Bank liable for defamation. According to CHS and Harrell, the Bank defamed them when
it filed its quiet title action. However, “[s]tatements made in connection with judicial
proceedings, including pleadings, are, if in any way relevant to the subject matter of the
action, absolutely privileged and immune from attack as defamation, even if such statements
are made maliciously and with knowledge of their falsehood.” McCorkle v. McCorkle, 811
So. 2d 258, 266 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). The Bank’s claims regarding its basis for its
quiet title action were directly relevant to the subject matter of its lawsuit. Accordingly,
though we do not find that the statements at issue were made maliciously or with knowledge
of their falsehood, we must find that the statements at issue were privileged. It follows that
we find no merit to this issue.
D.
¶26.
LITIGATION ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
In their final issue under this heading, CHS and Harrell claim that the chancellor erred
when she found that the Bank was not liable for damages pursuant to the Litigation
Accountability Act of 1988 as set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated sections 11-55-1
through -15. Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-55-5(1) (Rev. 2002) provides in
pertinent part that:
the court shall award, as part of its judgment and in addition to any other costs
otherwise assessed, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs against any party or
attorney if the court, upon the motion of any party or on its own motion, finds
that an attorney or party brought an action, or asserted any claim or defense,
that is without substantial justification, or that the action, or any claim or
11
defense asserted, was interposed for delay or harassment, or if it finds that an
attorney or party unnecessarily expanded the proceedings by other improper
conduct including, but not limited to, abuse of discovery procedures available
under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.
¶27.
A claim is without substantial justification when it is “frivolous, groundless in fact or
in law, or vexatious, as determined by the court.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-3(a) (Rev. 2002).
To determine whether a claim is frivolous, this Court looks to the definition of “frivolous”
as set forth in Rule 11 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Leaf River Forest Prods.,
Inc. v. Deakle, 661 So. 2d 188, 197 (Miss. 1995). In the context of Rule 11, a claim is
frivolous “only when, objectively speaking, the pleader or movant has no hope of success.”
Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1184 (Miss. 1993).
¶28.
Once again, we cannot find that the chancellor erred when she declined to order the
Bank to pay CHS and Harrell damages for a violation of the Litigation Accountability Act.
The Bank’s initial action was not frivolous. Accordingly, CHS and Harrell were not entitled
to an award pursuant to the Litigation Accountability Act. It follows that we find no merit
to this allegation.
III.
¶29.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
In their final issue, CHS and Harrell claim the chancellor erred when she declined to
order the Bank to pay CHS’s and Harrell’s attorneys’ fees. CHS’s and Harrell’s argument
for attorneys’ fees is based largely on the concept that the Bank was liable for abuse of
process, defamation, malicious prosecution, or damages pursuant to the Litigation
Accountability Act of 1988. We have found no merit to CHS’s and Harrell’s arguments
12
under those issues. Accordingly, we find no error in the chancellor’s decision to deny CHS’s
and Harrell’s claims for attorneys’ fees.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES ON CROSS-APPEAL
I.
¶30.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
In its initial and amended complaints, the Bank requested attorneys’ fees. The Bank
concedes that it did not offer any proof regarding attorneys’ fees during its case-in-chief.
However, the Bank moved the Court to reopen the proof to allow the Bank to put on proof
of its attorneys’ fees. The chancellor granted the Bank’s request, and the Bank put on its
proof. That decision is not challenged on appeal.
¶31.
However, the chancellor ultimately decided not to order CHS or Harrell to pay the
Bank’s attorneys’ fees. According to the chancellor, the Bank was not entitled to attorneys’
fees because attorneys’ fees were precluded by this Court’s decision in White v. Usry, 800
So. 2d 125, 134 (¶41) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), in which this Court held that a chancellor had
no authority to award attorneys’ fees incident to a suit to confirm title and to remove a cloud
on a title. The Bank claims the chancellor erred.
¶32.
The Bank argues that its suit was more than a suit to confirm title and to remove a
cloud on a title. Although it did not raise claims for breach of warranty or breach of contract
in its initial complaint, the Bank raised those claims in its amended complaint. The Bank
further notes that the chancellor expressly found that Harrell had breached the express
13
warranty of title provided by the September 2000 deed of trust.5 The chancellor also found
that “Harrell breached his contract with the Bank when he failed to pay the balance due on
the promissory note after receipt of written demand for the same.” The Bank cites Howard
v. Clanton, 481 So. 2d 272, 276-77 (Miss. 1985) in which the Mississippi Supreme Court
held that attorneys’ fees may be recoverable where there has been a breach of a warranty
deed and the purchaser was not divested of the land while adjudicating title.
¶33.
Because the chancellor found that Harrell breached the express warranty of title as
provided by the September 2000 deed of trust, and our precedent allows recovery of
attorneys’ fees incident to such a claim, we must conclude that the chancellor erred when she
held that the Bank could not recover attorneys’ fees. The Bank’s suit was more than an
action to quiet and confirm title. We cannot ignore the chancellor’s finding that Harrell
breached the express warranty of title. However, this Court is a reviewing court, and we are
not situated to act as a fact-finder under these circumstances. We have merely found that the
Bank is not precluded from recovering attorneys’ fees. We have not necessarily found that
the Bank is entitled to such fees. Accordingly, although the Bank has put forth proof of its
attorneys’ fees, we must remand this matter to the chancery court for a hearing regarding
whether Harrell should be responsible for the Bank’s attorneys’ fees based on the
chancellor’s findings that Harrell committed a breach of contract and a breach of the express
warranty of title and, if so, the appropriate amount of those fees.
5
According to the chancellor, “[Harrell] breached the express warranty of title given
in the [d]eed of [t]rust dated September 14, 2000.”
14
II.
¶34.
DEFICIENCY AMOUNT
The loan agreement between the Bank and Harrell provided that, in the event that
Harrell defaulted on the loan, the Bank had the right to “obtain a deficiency judgment if the
proceeds do not satisfy the debt.” The Bank claimed it was entitled to a deficiency judgment
of $81,611.03. The chancellor declined to order Harrell to pay the Bank a deficiency
judgment because the property had been appraised at more than $1,715,000 and the
difference between the sale price and the appraised price was approximately $750,000.
Therefore, there was sufficient equity in the land to satisfy the debt. The Bank claims the
chancellor erred. We disagree.
¶35.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-5-111 (Rev. 2002) provides as follows:
Upon the confirmation of the report of sale of any property, real or personal,
under a decree for sale to satisfy a mortgage, deed of trust, or other lien on
such property, if there be a balance due to the complainant, the court, upon
motion, shall give a decree against the defendant for any such balance for
which by the record of the case he may be personally liable, upon which
decree execution may issue.
A “mortgagee’s right to a deficiency decree is not absolute.” Lake Hillsdale Estates, Inc. v.
Galloway, 473 So. 2d 461, 466 (Miss. 1985). “The mortgagee’s right to a deficiency decree
usually depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and, since the mortgaged
premises constitute the primary fund for the payment of the mortgage debt, it is only where
the mortgagee has endeavored to collect it out of the land that a just judgment for deficiency
can be entered.” Id. In other words, “something more than a difference between the price
paid at the foreclosure and the amount of the indebtedness must be demonstrated before the
15
mortgagee is entitled to a deficiency judgment.” Id.
¶36.
In Galloway, the Mississippi Supreme Court could not “conclude that the value of the
property thereby obtained is insufficient to satisfy the indebtedness of the mortgagor.” Id.
Consequently, the supreme court held that the trial court in Galloway prematurely granted
a deficiency judgment upon a motion for a directed verdict. Id. The supreme court reversed
the trial court and remanded for a new hearing “to first determine if the mortgagee has
endeavored to collect the indebtedness out of the land.” Id. Assuming the mortgagee
satisfied the first question, the supreme court directed the trial court, upon remand, to
determine “whether the value of the property satisfies the debt of the mortgagor or creates
a surplus.” Id.
¶37.
The Bank claims that, despite the positive difference between the debt and the
appraised value, it is nonetheless entitled to a deficiency judgment. The Bank’s reasoning
is based on the fact that the Whitten Group purchased the property for no more than what the
Bank paid at the foreclosure sale. However, as the chancellor noted, there was no evidence
that the Bank sought to include the deficiency amount in the purchase price when it sold the
property to the Whitten Group. To be clear, this opinion should not be construed as a finding
that a deficiency judgment is only recoverable when a seller satisfies a prerequisite of
demonstrating an attempt to recover a deficient amount. Instead, we merely find that, under
the precise circumstances of this case, we cannot find that the chancellor abused her
discretion when she declined to award a deficiency judgment. This issue lacks merit.
III.
AMOUNT PAID TO REPURCHASE THE CRAWFORD LOT
16
¶38.
After the Whitten Group purchased the property at issue and discovered the cloud on
its title to the Crawford lot, the Whitten Group demanded that the Bank resolve the matter.
The Bank repurchased an acre of property that included the Crawford lot, the Hardage lot,
and a small parcel of property that adjoined the two lots. Although the property had been
appraised for $230,000, the Bank paid $264,000 for it. In its amended complaint, the Bank
requested that the chancellor order Harrell to pay the $34,000 difference between the
appraised price and the purchase price as indemnification to the Bank. However, the
chancellor declined the Bank’s request. To be precise, the chancellor found as follows:
The settlement paid by the Bank was voluntary, and under current Mississippi
law, an indemnitee such as the Bank cannot simply settle, and then send the
indemnitor his share of the bill. It must, in the words of our rule, prove that it
paid under compulsion. The evidence showed that the Bank settled simply
because there was a potential for liability arising from a breach of warranty.
The Bank claims the chancellor erred. We agree.
¶39.
“An obligation to indemnify may arise from a contractual relation, from an implied
contractual relation, or out of liability imposed by law.”
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Halliburton Co., 826 So. 2d 1206, 1216 (¶34) (Miss. 2001). We can find no direct
contractual obligation to indemnify on Harrell’s part. However, as mentioned above, the
chancellor found that Harrell breached the express warranty of title that he tendered to the
Bank. It follows that there was at least an implied contractual obligation to indemnify the
Bank for any damages that might result from the Bank’s sale of the property after the
foreclosure sale.
¶40.
There are two “critical” prerequisites of a noncontractual implied indemnification
17
obligation. Id. at (¶35). Those two prerequisites are: (1) that the damages a claimant seeks
are imposed due to a legal obligation to the injured person, and (2) “[i]t must appear that the
claimant did not actively or affirmatively participate in the wrong.” Id. As for the first
prerequisite, the Bank definitely had a legal obligation to give the Whitten Group a clear title
to the property it sold. As for the second prerequisite, we have found no evidence that the
Bank “actively” participated in placing a cloud on the title to the Whitten Group. The Bank
had a justifiable reason to believe that it had a clear title to the Crawford lot when it
purchased the property at issue during the foreclosure sale. Harrell’s attorney, Wright,
prepared a certificate of title and mistakenly stated that Harrell owned the title to the
Crawford lot free from any encumbrances. Because the Bank satisfied the two prerequisites
of an implied indemnification obligation and is not precluded from recovery, we may now
consider whether the Bank demonstrated the elements of its claim.
¶41.
To prevail on an indemnity claim, the Bank was obligated to prove that: “(1) it was
legally liable to an injured third party, (2) it paid under compulsion, and (3) the amount it
paid was reasonable.” Id. at (¶36). Without question, the Bank was legally liable to the
Whitten Group. The Bank sold the Whitten Group property that the Bank did not actually
own. The record does not contain any discussion of the third element, whether the amount
paid was reasonable. However, under the circumstances, our resolution turns on the second
element: whether the Bank paid under compulsion. The chancellor found that the Bank did
not pay under compulsion because there was merely a potential for liability due to the Bank’s
breach of warranty. Although we are mindful of the deferential standard of review, we must
18
conclude that the chancellor erred.
¶42.
“To constitute ‘compulsion’ . . . rendering payment involuntary, there must be some
actual or threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposedly possessed, by payee over
payer’s person or property, from which payer has no means of immediate relief except by
advancing money.” Black’s Law Dictionary 287 (6th ed. 1990). The chancellor correctly
stated the law in that one who seeks indemnity “cannot recover under this legal principle on
the theory that [he] might have been liable to those with whom [he] settled if [he] had not
settled with them.” Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 826 So. 2d at 1216-17 (¶37). The Bank could
not “simply settle, and then send the indemnitor his share of the bill.” Id. at 1217 (¶38).
¶43.
However, the law is also clear that the Bank was not obligated to litigate the matter
as a prerequisite to indemnification. Id. The Bank “was entitled to use its own good
judgment and effect [a] settlement of the . . . claim.” Id. The Bank has never described its
liability as “potential” as characterized by the chancellor. While the Bank’s liability may be
characterized as “potential” in that it had not been adjudicated when settled, the Bank never
denied that it was liable for breaching its express warranty of title as provided to the Whitten
Group. Because the Bank would not have breached its warranty had Harrell not breached
his own express warranty of title, we must find that the Bank was not precluded from
obtaining a judgment for indemnification.
¶44.
Be that as it may, we do not render a judgment for the Bank. Instead, because we are
not suited to act as a fact-finder, we must remand this matter to the chancery court for a
determination as to whether the amount paid was reasonable. If so, only then may the
19
chancellor order Harrell to indemnify the Bank. Accordingly, we reverse the chancellor’s
judgment incident to this issue and remand this matter to the chancellor for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
¶45. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEAKE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS
AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL AND, ON CROSS-APPEAL, AFFIRMED IN
PART AND REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED EQUALLY BETWEEN THE APPELLANTS/CROSSAPPELLEES AND THE APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
20
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.