Dismiss Holding, Inc. v. E. Harold Knight
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CA-00042-COA
DISMISS HOLDING, INC.
APPELLANT
v.
E. HAROLD KNIGHT AND BENNY KNIGHT
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
APPELLEES
12/12/2006
HON. PAT H. WATTS, JR.
JACKSON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
W. HARVEY BARTON
MATTHEW G. MESTAYER
CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL
INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
IN TRESPASS ACTION, CHANCERY COURT
AWARDED DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S
FEES
AFFIRMED - 5/20/2008
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., CHANDLER AND BARNES, JJ.
MYERS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This case arises out of a trespass action brought by E. Harold Knight and Benny Knight
against Dismiss Holding, Inc. (Dismiss Holding), for the wrongful entry upon approximately four
acres of commercial property located in Pascagoula, Jackson County, Mississippi. The Jackson
County Chancery Court awarded attorney’s fees to E. Harold Knight upon finding that Dismiss
Holding was grossly negligent in failing to obtain a title opinion before entering upon the property
purchased at a sheriff’s execution sale. Finding that the chancery court did not err in awarding
attorney’s fees, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
Knight’s Piping, Inc., a Mississippi company located in Pascagoula and Gautier, was
operated and owned in part by E. Harold Knight and Benny Knight. A creditor of Knight’s Piping
obtained a judgment against the business and requested that the sheriff serve a writ of execution
against the property at issue. On August 17, 2004, Dismiss Holding purchased the property in the
sheriff’s execution sale for $31,000 and received a quitclaim deed.1 Dismiss Holding did not have
the title examined before the sale, and it did not utilize the services of its own in-house attorney or
outside attorney to assist in the property transaction. Dismiss Holding promptly gained entry onto
the property, changed the locks, and began renovations. However, when Dismiss Holding took
possession, the property was, in fact, not owned by Knight’s Piping, but rather owned by E. Harold
Knight and Benny Knight. Upon Dismiss Holding’s entry on the land, the Knights repeatedly
requested that Dismiss Holding voluntarily vacate the property and presented a title opinion
evidencing that the property belonged to the Knights, individually. Dismiss Holding remained on
the property and continued its renovations. The Knights eventually filed a trespass action in the
Chancery Court of Jackson County on August 27, 2004, seeking damages and attorney’s fees. The
quitclaim deed was held to be null and void, and possession of the property was returned to the
Knights. The Knights were awarded $2,108 in actual damages and E. Harold Knight was awarded
$9,500 in attorney’s fees. Dismiss Holding, aggrieved by the chancery court’s award of attorney’s
fees, appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶3.
We review the findings of a chancellor for an abuse of discretion and will not disturb the
findings on review “unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied the
1
We find it necessary to mention that testimony at the hearing on the matter provided that
prior to the sheriff’s sale of the property for $31,000, Dismiss Holding attempted to buy the property
for $365,000. While this fact is not specifically mentioned in the chancellor’s opinion, it was
undoubtedly considered in finding Dismiss Holding grossly negligent.
2
wrong legal standard.” Miss. Power Co. v. Hanson, 905 So. 2d 547, 549 (¶8) (Miss. 2005) (quoting
McNeil v. Hester, 753 So. 2d 1057, 1063 (¶21) (Miss. 2000)).
ANALYSIS
¶4.
The chancellor found that Dismiss Holding was grossly negligent in failing to obtain a title
opinion before entering upon the property purchased at a sheriff’s execution sale. Based on this
finding of gross negligence, the chancellor awarded attorney’s fees to E. Harold Knight as punitive
damages. Dismiss Holding argues that the chancellor erred in awarding attorney’s fees to E. Harold
Knight because it asserts that it was an innocent purchaser of the property; therefore, it should not
be assessed punitive damages.
¶5.
A chancellor may award attorney’s fees as punitive damages in a trespass action if the
trespass is proven to be willful, wanton, or grossly negligent. R & S Dev., Inc. v. Wilson, 534 So.
2d 1008, 1013 (Miss. 1988). In the instant case, the chancellor found that Dismiss Holding did not
fall within the category of an innocent purchaser because it had “means of knowledge” to determine
whether its acquisition of title was proper before entering thereon. Specifically, the chancellor stated
that the particular “means of knowledge” that Dismiss Holding could have utilized to determine its
ownership rights was to obtain a title opinion prior to its entry. Thus, the chancellor reasoned,
because Dismiss Holding failed to obtain a title opinion, it could not be characterized as an innocent
purchaser and was grossly negligent in its entry on to the property of E. Harold Knight.
¶6.
We do not find that the chancellor abused his discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to E.
Harold Knight. The chancellor’s finding that Dismiss Holding was grossly negligent in its trespass
cannot be said to be manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of
the chancery court.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
3
KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND
CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT
SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
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.