Bryd Brothers, LLC. v. Bobby Herring
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CA-00935-COA
BYRD BROTHERS, LLC
APPELLANT
v.
BOBBY HERRING D/B/A HERRING ELECTRICAL
AND PLUMBING
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
7/2/2002
HON. HENRY L. LACKEY
LAFAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN
OMAR D. CRAIG
CIVIL - CONTRACT
JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR BOBBY HERRING
D/B/A HERRING ELECTRICAL AND
PLUMBING IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,937.05.
REVERSED AND REMANDED: 12/16/2003
BEFORE KING, P.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
KING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
The Lafayette County Circuit Court entered judgment, in the amount of $ 9, 937.05, for Bobby
Herring d/b/a Herring Electrical and Plumbing against Byrd Brothers, LLC on an open account pursuant
to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-53-81. Byrd Brothers’ counter-claim, which alleged breach
of contract and slander of title by Herring Plumbing, was dismissed. Aggrieved, Byrd Brothers perfected
its appeal and raised several issues. This Court finds what was identified as issue III, to be dispositive of
this case. This Court has restated that issue as:
I.
Whether Byrd Brothers was required to allow Herring to repair defective work, and if so
was Herring given the opportunity to repair defective items ?
FACTS
¶2.
Byrd Brothers, LLC is a construction company based in DeSoto County, Mississippi; its principals
are three brothers, Tim, Terry, and Billy Byrd. Bobby Herring d/b/a/ Herring Plumbing and Electric is an
electrical and plumbing company based in Pontotoc County, Mississippi. Byrd Brothers contracted with
Herring to perform plumbing work on Sage Meadows, a condominium complex located on Anderson Road
in Lafayette County, Mississippi. The contract called for Herring to be paid $1,980 per unit for the
plumbing work, including all labor and materials, but not fixtures, in fourteen condominiums at Sage
Meadows. This sum was to be paid in three installments. Herring and his crew began work on the units in
February of 2000 shortly after the contract was signed.
¶3.
Not long after work began, problems developed between the parties. Initially, the parties disagreed
over whether “plumbing” as used in the contract included installation of gas and gas fixtures. Byrd
contended that it did, while Herring contended that it did not. The parties resolved this issue by an
agreement that Byrd would pay Herring $100 per gas opening installed, with the exception of the first four
units, in which Herring agreed to install gas free of charge.
¶4.
Tim Byrd’s daily monitoring of the work at Sage Meadows was also a source of discord. Tim Byrd
requested that Herring Plumbing correct some items which were done improperly, such as vent pipes on
water heaters, pipes and stub-outs that were “off a little bit,” and the flashing of the vents. Tim Byrd also
raised questions with Bobby Herring about the installation of “look alike” fixtures and a general shoddiness
of work. Herring’s reaction was to tell Byrd that he was “being too picky.” After constantly having these
problems brought to his attention by Tim Byrd, some of the problems were fixed. This caused a further
2
deterioration of the relationship. Recognizing this deterioration, Tim Byrd and Billy Byrd called Bobby
Herring after the first phase of the condominiums was completed to discuss how things were going.
According to Byrd, Herring promised that things would get better if Herring Plumbing were allowed to
finish the next phase of the condominiums.
¶5.
Billing problems also surfaced between the parties. During phase three of the project, Bobby
Herring submitted a set of invoices to Tim Byrd and requested immediate payment. Byrd stated that he
could not make “heads or tails,” of the invoices, and therefore requested that Herring submit invoices for
each unit. Within an hour, Herring revised the invoices and was issued a check for the requested sum.
Later, Tim Byrd checked the invoices and discovered what he felt was some double billing and bill padding.
He then issued a stop payment order on the check.
¶6.
About this same time, Herring Plumbing was asked off the job site by Billy Byrd. Later, Tim Byrd
called Bobby Herring to discuss concerns about the quality of the work and to request that Herring
Plumbing return to correct the problems and complete the balance of the work. Bobby Herring declined
to even discuss a return to the job unless Byrd was prepared to immediately pay him some money. When
Byrd insisted that they should at least sit down and discuss the work, Herring declined to do so and chose
not to return.
¶7.
Herring filed suit in the Circuit Court of Lafayette County against Byrd Brothers
seeking
damages of $21,836.77.
¶8.
Byrd Brothers filed a counter-claim for damages it suffered due to Herring’s defective
workmanship. Byrd Brothers alleged that it would have owed Herring Plumbing $9,937.05 if it had
properly performed the contract. However, Byrd Brothers contends that it was required to spend
3
approximately $14, 580.95, in mitigation of damages due to Herring’s defective work and it was therefore
owed $4,621.25 by Herring.
¶9.
Byrd Brothers employed William Sloane to correct and complete Herring’s work. Sloane testified
that all licensed plumbers are required to comply with the Southern Building Code, and that Herring’s work
did not comply with the code. Among the failures identified by Sloane were some toilets that were loose
and had to be taken up and reset, because they rocked from side to side, tub spouts that were too far from
the wall, which had to be removed and replaced, and the placement of plastic drain pans under the water
heaters.
¶10.
Byrd Brothers also offered the testimony of Mike Chaney, a plumbing expert. According to
Chaney, Herring’s workmanship was generally shoddy and inconsistent. Among the examples of defective
workmanship noted by Chaney were the following: stub-outs for installing commodes done incorrectly,
making it impossible to set the commodes level, rough-ins which did not fit plan dimensions, improper
openings for shower fixtures, and cedar chips placed under the commode to keep it level.
¶11.
Using a videotape and photographs, Chaney pointed out specific examples of shoddy workmanship
by Herring. He noted that the sealant mandated by the code to prevent leaks was not used in at least one
apartment. Because the piping in the other apartments had been enclosed in the wall, he offered no
testimony about them. Chaney pointed out the use of plastic pans, rather than metal, under the water
heaters, in direct violation of the code. Chaney pointed out cracked concrete caused by Herring’s having
to take up and reset a commode which was not level, “look alike” fixtures, rather then the contractually
specified Delta fixtures, and water heater vent pipes in contact with the wood behind the heater.
¶12.
In viewing the video, Bobby Herring acknowledged that some of Herring Plumbing’s work failed
to meet mandatory code requirements.
4
¶13.
On July 2, 2002, the trial judge entered judgment in favor of Herring Plumbing and Electric against
Byrd Brothers in the amount of $9,937.05. This was the amount that Byrd Brothers submitted that it would
have owed Herring had he completed the work; however, this amount was never contended as damages
by Herring. The trial judge in his opinion stated “because the defendant failed to offer or allow the Plaintiff
the opportunity to correct any deficiencies, the Defendant is not entitled to any offset or deduction.”
Aggrieved by this decision Byrd Brothers perfected its appeal.
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Whether Byrd Brothers was required to allow Herring to repair defective work, and if
so was Herring given the opportunity to repair defective items ?
¶14.
This Court’s applicable standard of review is found in Amerson v. State, 648 So.2d 58, 60
(Miss.1994): For findings of a trial judge sitting without a jury, this Court will reverse only where the
findings of the trial judge are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. “A judge sitting without a jury has sole
authority for determining credibility of the witnesses.” Rice Researchers, Inc. v. Hiter, 512 So.2d 1259,
1265 (Miss.1987).
¶15.
A party who has breached or failed to properly perform a contract has a responsibility and
a right to cure the breach. Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc. v. Smith, 523 So. 2d 324, 328 (Miss.
1988). The non-breaching party must give him a reasonable opportunity to cure the breach. Id.
However, the right to cure is not unlimited. Rester v. Morrow, 491 So. 2d 204, 210 (Miss. 1986).
¶16.
Where the breach is a material one, the non-breaching party has a right to end the contract, UHS-
Qualicare, Inc., UHS of the Gulf Coast, Inc., and Qualicare Sub., Inc., et al. v. Gulf Coast Cmty.
Hosp., Inc., et al., 525 So. 2d 746, 756 (Miss. 1987), but in doing so he is also obligated to minimize his
damages. Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc., 523 So. 2d at 328. Likewise, when the conduct of the
5
breaching party has been of such a nature as to cause a loss of confidence or “shaken faith, ” the offended
party is entitled to end the contract, Rester v. Morrow, 491 So. 2d 204, 210 (Miss. 1986), but he remains
responsible for mitigating damages.
¶17.
The record before this Court indicates that Herring was given the opportunity to cure his breach
of contract. Tim Byrd was at the construction site on a daily basis identifying contractual breaches and
inviting Herring to cure them. Rather than exercising his right and obligation to cure, Herring would gripe
and claim that Byrd Brothers was “being too picky.” Herring’s conduct led to such a deterioration of the
working relationship, that his workers were asked to leave the job site. When contacted by Tim Byrd to
return to work, correct the problems and complete the contract, Herring declined.
¶18.
The relationship was further exacerbated when Byrd Brothers questioned what it perceived to be
Herring’s double billing and over billing.
¶19.
Clearly, Herring was given several opportunities to cure his repeated contractual breaches, but did
not do so. Having given Herring a reasonable opportunity to cure, Byrd Brothers was entitled to, and
obligated to move forward and mitigate damages. Fitzner Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac, Inc., 523 So. 2d at
328.
¶20.
As the trial court correctly found, Herring was entitled to compensation for work done under the
contract. However, the trial court incorrectly measured Herring’s entitlement. The trial court awarded
Herring the balance of the contract price. What Herring was entitled to was the balance of the contract
price less the reasonable costs of mitigation of damages incurred by Byrd Brothers. The Sumrall Church
of the Lord Jesus Christ v. Johnson,757 So. 2d 311, 313 (¶ 3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
¶21.
Finding error, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Our disposition of this issue renders moot
the other issues raised on appeal.
6
¶22. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAFAYETTE COUNTY IS
REVERSED AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. ALL COSTS ARE
TAXED TO THE APPELLEE.
McMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER
AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR. SOUTHWICK, P.J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
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.
