Canizaro v. Mobile Communications Corp. of America

Decision Date30 March 1995
Docket NumberNo. 91-CA-00742-SCT,91-CA-00742-SCT
Citation655 So.2d 25
PartiesJoseph C. CANIZARO v. MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, BellSouth Corporation and BLS Acquisition Corp. I, Inc.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

James L. Young, John F. Simon, Jr., Young Scanlon & Sessums, Jackson, for appellant.

Lawrence J. Franck, Leslie Joyner Bobo, A. Camille Henick, Butler Snow O'Mara Stevens & Cannada, Jackson, Jack Wallach, Atlanta, GA, for appellee.

Before HAWKINS, C.J., and McRAE and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.

HAWKINS, Chief Justice, for the Court:

Joseph C. Canizaro filed suit against Mobile Communications Corporation of America ("MCCA"), BellSouth Corporation ("BellSouth") and BLS Acquisition Corp. I, Inc. ("BLS") in the circuit court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. The complaint alleged that MCCA had breached a contract to enter into a lease with Canizaro, and that BellSouth and BLS had tortiously interfered with said contract. After discovery, all three defendants made a motion for summary judgment. The trial judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Canizaro now appeals the court's ruling.

FACTS

On March 18, 1987, Canizaro and MCCA entered into an "Agreement to Enter Lease and Participation Agreement." The agreement contemplated that Canizaro would construct an office building in downtown Jackson, Mississippi, to be known as the "MCCA Tower," and that MCCA would be the building's principal tenant. Under the terms of the agreement, however, MCCA would not be obligated to "close" the lease until Canizaro obtained the necessary financing for the building construction. The agreement stated in part:

8. Closing Date

The closing ("Closing") of the transaction contemplated herein shall occur at the offices of MCCA 1700 Capital Towers Building, Jackson, MS 39201 at the earlier of 120 days from the date hereof or within ten (10) days following the date MCCA issues its final written approval to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement (the "Closing Date"). The closing date may be extended for an additional 60 days if construction financing shall not have been committed, and the CANIZARO Interests are diligently pursuing the availability of such financing.

....

10. Default

....

Without limitation of the foregoing and notwithstanding any other provisions in this Agreement, MCCA acknowledges that CANIZARO has, in this Agreement undertaken certain obligations and have [sic] made certain covenants and representations which he may be unable to keep and perform by the Closing Date after asserting their best efforts to do so in good faith. In such event, absent the occurrence of an Event of Default, and if the Event of Default has not been waived by MCCA, then either party may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other. Upon any such termination, this Agreement shall become null and void and of no further force or effect, and the parties shall be relieved of their respective obligations and liabilities hereunder.

....

12.9 If full performance of this Agreement is not completed by the Closing Date and is not otherwise excused, either party shall have the right after that date to declare time to be of the essence of this Agreement by giving written notice to the other party. Such notice shall contain a declaration that time is of the essence and shall fix the time, date and place of final settlement, which date may not be sooner than fifteen (15) days nor later than thirty (30) days following the effective date of giving such notice. (Emphasis added).

The conclusion of the agreement stated that no modifications or waivers with respect to the agreement would be effective unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The agreement was executed by Canizaro and John N. Palmer, president of MCCA.

During the first 120 days after the agreement was executed, both Canizaro and MCCA took various steps with regards to closing the agreement and completing the design of the building. As financing was not obtained within this period, however, a sixty-day extension on the closing date was approved. The closing was then scheduled to be completed by September 15, 1987. During September 1987, Canizaro and his associates were actively engaged in the process of obtaining financing for the project; however, a financing commitment was not finalized by September 15. Nonetheless, MCCA agreed to extend the deadline to October 15, 1987, in a letter dated September 16, 1987. In doing so, MCCA also placed Canizaro on notice that time was of the essence, but did not inform Canizaro that the contract would be terminated if financing was not obtained by the new deadline. Financing was not obtained by October 15.

In any event, MCCA and Canizaro continued "working towards trying to make the project a reality," after the October 15 deadline. In particular, Canizaro alleges MCCA retained the services of its architect and designer, and continued to make changes with respect to the floor-plans of the building. MCCA representatives also continued to participate in construction conferences with Canizaro's representatives. In November 1987, Palmer and Canizaro took a trip to Nashville, Tennessee, to inspect a building which had been designed by the firm that was to design the MCCA Tower. During this period, Canizaro and Palmer continued to discuss financing for the project, but Palmer did not establish any new deadlines. In his deposition, Palmer also admitted that he did continue to pursue new tenants for the building. Palmer never informed Canizaro that "the deal [was] off."

In December 1987, Canizaro and MCCA held a public ground-breaking ceremony on the MCCA Tower building site. According to Palmer, the event was attended by the mayor of Jackson and various other dignitaries, and received at least some coverage by the media. At the ceremony, the parties expressed their intention of "going forward with the building." Prior to the ceremony, MCCA's in-house counsel, Rubel Phillips, informed Palmer that he did not believe the parties should have such a ceremony until a financing commitment had been reached. Phillips believed that the ground-breaking would have great significance to the public, and he did not wish to send the "wrong signals."

During the last months of 1987, MCCA and Palmer were also in contact with BellSouth, specifically Roger Hale, a vice president with BellSouth. According to Hale, the October 1987 stock market crash had made the acquisition of MCCA an attractive prospect. However, it appears BellSouth preferred that MCCA not engage in the lease agreement with Canizaro.

On December 30, 1987, MCCA's outside counsel, Dennis Ford, sent Canizaro a letter on behalf of MCCA stating that Canizaro had had since October 15 to obtain financing. Although the letter also stated that the agreement between the parties had expired, Ford instructed Canizaro that MCCA would still enter into a lease if a financing commitment satisfactory to MCCA could be obtained by January 30, 1988. Under the terms of the letter, the offer was made "without intending any legal significance or ratification of the prior agreements." Palmer stated that Canizaro was not consulted prior to this demand letter being sent.

A few days after he received the December 30 letter, Canizaro met with Palmer in New Orleans, Louisiana, at a football game. At this meeting, Canizaro requested that he be given until the end of February to obtain financing. According to Canizaro, Palmer responded, "No problem, you can have till February the 28th." Palmer admitted that he told Canizaro not to worry about the deadline.

On January 14, 1988, BellSouth made a formal proposal to acquire MCCA. One portion of the proposal required MCCA to:

[T]ake all necessary action to terminate all existing or proposed commitments with regard to the planned new MCCA building in Jackson, Mississippi. This action shall be taken without recourse to MCCA.

As a result of this proposal, Palmer telephoned Canizaro and informed him that he would have to enforce the January 30 deadline contained in the letter of December 30. Negotiations between MCCA and BellSouth began shortly thereafter. However, on January 28, 1988, negotiations were terminated, and BellSouth withdrew its offer to acquire MCCA.

On January 29, 1988, Canizaro presented MCCA with a financing commitment for $38,500,000.00 from Unifirst Bank for Savings ("Unifirst"). Three days later, on February 1, MCCA rejected the proposed loan commitment. In the letter he wrote to Canizaro, Ford stated that the commitment failed to:

[M]eet the terms of the original agreement to enter partnership, does not meet with the corporation's approval, and therefore does not fulfill the conditions required in my correspondence of December 30, 1987 for MCCA to go forward with leasing space in the proposed Tower ...

MCCA hereby gives you notice that all of its obligations to Joseph C. Canizaro Interests have terminated.

Specifically, MCCA contended that the commitment contained several illusory provisions that would have allowed Unifirst to totally avoid funding the project.

Three weeks later on February 18, MCCA and BellSouth resumed their negotiations. On February 19, the two corporations announced that plans for a merger had been reached.

In October 1988, Canizaro filed suit against MCCA, BellSouth, and BLS, a holding company formed to effectuate the merger between MCCA and BellSouth. Canizaro alleged that MCCA had breached its contract with Canizaro, and that BellSouth and BLS had tortiously interfered with the contractual relationship. After a lengthy discovery period, all three defendants moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the defendants' motion. In its order, the court found that the contract between Canizaro and MCCA had expired on October 15, 1987. Although Canizaro contended that MCCA's conduct after October 15 amounted to a waiver, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Gatlin
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 26, 2003
    ... ... (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626, 105 ... Sys., 789 So.2d 771, 775 (Miss.2001) (quoting Canizaro v. Mobile Communications Corp., 655 So.2d 25, 29 ... ...
  • SACRED HEART HEALTH v. HUMANA MILITARY HEALTHCARE
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • March 30, 2010
    ... ... T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1266 (11th Cir.2009) ("A ... Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 398 (6th Cir.1998) (en banc) (reversing ... to individualized material such as email communications, meeting minutes, and the recollections of past and present ... Entm't, 766 So.2d 595, 602 (La.Ct.App.2000); Canizaro v. Mobile Commc'ns Corp. of Am., 655 So.2d 25, 29 (1995); ... ...
  • Tupelo Redevelopment Agency v. Gray Corp., 2006-CA-00218-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 18, 2007
    ...a party to a contract may by words or conduct waive a right to which he would otherwise have been entitled." Canizaro v. Mobile Communications Corp., 655 So.2d 25, 29 (Miss. 1995). Therefore, "the writing requirement contained in the contract could itself be waived by the subsequent conduct......
  • Beachy v. Miss. Dist. Council for Assemblies of God
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 24, 2023
    ... ... Various ... meetings and communications were had between Beachy and the ... District ... 2001) ... (citing Canizaro v. Mobile Commc'ns Corp. of ... Am ., 655 So.2d 25, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Stevens v. Publicis: the Rise of "no E-mail Modification" Causes?
    • United States
    • University of Whashington School of Law Journal of Law, Technology & Arts No. 6-1, September 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...modify a contract, although the oral statements themselves waive the writing requirement); Canizaro v. Mobile Commc'ns Corp. of America, 655 So. 2d 25, 30 (Miss. 1995) (noting that oral modification was effective, and waived a NOM clause when there was reliance, and analogizing the situatio......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT