Robert R. Patterson, Jr. v. Trustmark National Bank
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CA-00203-COA
ROBERT R. PATTERSON, JR. AND MID-SOUTH
INVESTMENT CORPORATION
APPELLANTS
V.
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
12/16/2003
HON. WILLIAM HALE SINGLETARY
HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
MICHAEL JAMES BROWN
WILLIAM J. LITTLE, JR.
CIVIL - CONTRACT
COURT HELD THAT PATTERSON AND MIDSOUTH WERE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY
LIABLE TO TRUSTMARK FOR AMOUNT
OVER-CREDITED TO MID-SOUTH ACCOUNT.
AFFIRMED: 05/17/2005
BEFORE KING, C.J., CHANDLER AND BARNES, JJ.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This action arises from a complaint filed by Trustmark National Bank against Robert R. Patterson,
Jr. and Mid-South Investment Corporation for judicial foreclosure and other relief in the Chancery Court
of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. The chancellor ordered that Trustmark recover
from Patterson and Mid-South, jointly and severally, $96,831, plus interest at the rate of 4.695% per
annum from April 9, 2001 until paid in full. The chancellor ordered that Patterson and Mid-South pay
attorney’s fees, expenses and court costs in the amount of $24,207.75. Patterson and Mid-South now
appeal that decision, raising the following issue which we quote verbatim:
Did the trial judge commit reversible error in his finding of fact in his ruling in favor of the
plaintiff?
¶2.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3.
Sherra Slaughter, a warehouse lending officer1 at Trustmark, received a funding request from Mid-
South for its borrowers (Swims and Ives). The loans totaled $96,831. According to Slaughter, she made
the deposit on April 9, 2001. Inadvertently, Slaughter transposed the numbers when she wrote out the
deposit ticket. In writing the account number on the deposit ticket, Slaughter wrote down “21" instead of
“12." On April 10, a loan check drawn on the account “hit in overdraft” because there were not any funds
in the account at the time.
¶4.
Upon researching the matter, Slaughter realized that the April 9 deposit did not show up in the
account. In an attempt to correct her mistake, Slaughter made another deposit for the account and waited
for the ticket to come back from the proof department.
¶5.
According to Rick Miller’s (first vice president and mortgage financial officer of the mortgage
department at Trustmark) testimony, deposit slips are forwarded to the proof department which then
deposits funds into the account. The proof department realized Slaughter’s error and rather than sending
the deposit slip back to her, made the deposit into the account.
1
According to the Bank and Stock Exchange Encyclopedia at www. encyclopedia-wiki.org, a
warehouse lender is a short-term lender for mortgage bankers, who provides interim financing until the
mortgage is sold to a permanent investor. Slaughter is in charge of the warehouse lending operations.
Her duties include taking requests and making deposits based on the requests, sending and receiving
wires for the payments on warehouse loans, and collecting interest and fees on a monthly basis for the
loans.
2
¶6.
Approximately a week later, Slaughter realized that the $96,831 had been deposited twice into
Mid-South’s account. In September 2002, Slaughter attempted to do a month-to-month review of MidSouth’s account from April 2001 through January 2002. She indicated that the review reflected that the
deposit had been made twice, but the additional deposit had not been collected.
¶7.
On September 23, 2002, Patterson wrote to Miller indicating that a review of Mid-South’s
warehouse accounts had been made and that a double deposit of $96,831 had been made by Trustmark
on April 10, 2001. Patterson asked that Miller allow them to settle the error at a substantial discount.
¶8.
On February 11, 2003, Trustmark filed a complaint against Patterson and Mid-South seeking to
have Patterson declared personally liable for all indebtedness of Mid-South Investment Corporation and
to seek a judgment against the parties. The matter was tried on September 15 and 22, 2003. The
chancellor found that Trustmark over-credited Mid-South’s account in the amount of $96,831 by placing
an advance on the line of credit twice for the same loans. The chancellor determined that Patterson had
executed a continuing guaranty and a revolving master note to secure the line of credit for Mid-South. The
chancellor held that Patterson and Mid-South were therefore jointly and severally liable to Trustmark.
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Did the trial judge commit reversible error in his finding of fact in his ruling in favor of the
plaintiff?
Standard of Review
¶9.
"A chancellor sits as a fact-finder and in resolving factual disputes, is the sole judge of the
credibility of witnesses." Hopper v. Hopper, 773 So. 2d 395 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). This Court
will not set aside a chancellor's finding of fact or disturb it on appeal unless the finding is manifestly wrong
3
or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence. Bredemeier v. Jackson, 689 So. 2d 770, 775
(Miss. 1997).
¶10.
In reaching a decision, the chancellor had before him (1) the continuing guaranty executed by
Patterson, which provided, “I do furthermore bind and obligate myself, my heirs and assigns, jointly and
severally, with said debtor, for the payment of the said indebtedness precisely as if the same had been
contracted and was due or owing by me in person, hereby agreeing to, and holding myself and my heirs
and assigns, by all terms and conditions contained in any note or notes signed by said debtors, making
myself a party thereto,” (2) the revolving master note, (3) the testimony of the bank employees that this
money had been twice deposited to the account of Mid-South, and (4) the testimony of the bank
employees that the extra deposit had not been recovered by Trustmark. The chancellor found this evidence
to be credible, and rendered judgment for Trustmark. Because that decision is supported by substantial
credible evidence, this Court must defer to it. Bredemeier, 689 So. 2d at 775. While Patterson and MidSouth argue that the testimony presented by Slaughter contradicted the chancellor’s findings, it is important
to note that we do not require the chancellor’s findings to be uncontradicted, but merely to be supported
by substantial credible evidence. Murphy v. Murphy, 631 So. 2d 812, 815 (Miss. 1994). Those findings
are supported by substantial credible evidence, and this Court affirms the chancellor’s decision.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL
DISTRICT OF HINDS COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANTS.
BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND
ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.
