Estate of Martin Luther King Jr., Inc. v. Ballou

• Decision Date: 23 March 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:11CV591TSL–MTP.
• Citation: 856 F.Supp.2d 860
• Parties: The ESTATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., INC., A Georgia Corporation, Plaintiff v. Howard Nelson BALLOU, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

856 F.Supp.2d 860

The ESTATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., INC., A Georgia Corporation, Plaintiff

v.Howard Nelson BALLOU, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:11CV591TSL–MTP.

United States District Court,

S.D. Mississippi,

Jackson Division.

March 23, 2012.

Bob Owens, Rajita Iyer Moss, Owens Moss, PLLC, John L. Walker, Jr., Walker Group, PC, Jackson, MS, Samuel Fisher, Toni J. Braxton, Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Robert L. Gibbs, Gibbs Whitwell PLLC, Jackson, MS, Mary M. Waycaster, Law Offices of Mary Margaret Waycaster, PA, Madison, MS, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TOM S. LEE, District Judge.

This action arises out of claims made by plaintiff, the Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc., a Georgia corporation (King Estate), that certain documents in the possession of defendant Howard Nelson Ballou relating to the civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are the property of the King Estate. The King Estate seeks the return of the documents and damages for conversion. Defendant Howard Ballou has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contending the King Estate's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and alternatively, that the Estate's claims fail as a matter of law on the merits because the Estate cannot establish ownership and consequent right to possession of the documents at issue. The court, having considered the memoranda of authorities, together with attachments, submitted by the parties, concludes that defendant's motion is well taken and should be granted.

Defendant Howard Ballou's mother, Maude Ballou, originally came to possess the subject documents ¹ during her employment as the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s personal secretary. The record establishes that in 1955, upon his election as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) in Montgomery, Alabama, Dr. King, who was close personal friends with Leonard and Maude Ballou, defendant's parents, hired Mrs. Ballou as his secretary. She worked for him in Montgomery, during his tenure as MIA president and as he was working to found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). In 1960, when Dr. King and his family moved to Atlanta to establishhis office at the SCLC headquarters, Mrs. Ballou accompanied Dr. King to Atlanta, and assisted him in his position as SCLC president. After a brief period in Atlanta, Mrs. Ballou left Dr. King's employ and returned to her family in Alabama.

It is undisputed that over the course of her employment with Dr. King, Mrs. Ballou obtained various documents relating to Dr. King and his work, and that of the MIA and SCLS, and that when she left Dr. King's employ, she kept these documents. Leonard Ballou organized these various documents, and when he and Mrs. Ballou later became employed at Elizabeth City State University (ECSU) in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, she, as a registrar and he, as an archivist, Leonard Ballou apparently stored the documents and other items in the basement of the ECSU library. In December 2007, after Leonard Ballou's death, an ECSU archivist discovered the documents in the library basement. Upon the discovery of the items, and believing the documents had belonged to Leonard Ballou, ECSU delivered the documents to Leonard Ballou's son, defendant Howard Ballou.

The King Estate learned of the existence of the subject documents, and of their possession by defendant, in or around February 2010, when an article was published in an Elizabeth City newspaper relating the discovery of the documents. The King Estate contacted defendant asserting ownership of the documents and demanding their return. When defendant failed to respond and/or return the papers, the King Estate filed this suit in replevin seeking possession of the documents in defendant's possession and damages for conversion.

In his motion for summary judgment, defendant argues two grounds for dismissal: (1) that plaintiff's claims are barred by Mississippi's three-year statute of limitations, and (2) that the Estate cannot prevail because it cannot establish ownership of the subject documents, an essential element of its claims. In the court's opinion, defendant's motion is well taken on both points.

While defendant's reasoning with respect to his statute of limitations argument is faulty, his conclusion that the claims are time-barred is correct.² In Mississippi, claims for conversion and replevin are governed by Mississippi's residual statute of limitations, which for causes of action accruing after 1989 is three years and for causes of action accruing in or prior to 1989 is six years. SeeMiss.Code Ann. § 15–1–49(1) (“All actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed shall be commenced within three (3) years next after the cause of such action accrued, and not after.”); First Bank v. Eastern Livestock Co., 886 F.Supp. 1328, 1330 (S.D.Miss.1995). Mississippi law provides that “[a] conversion occurs when a person exercises an unauthorized act of dominion or ownership over the personal property of another.” Cycles, Ltd. v. W.J. Digby, Inc., 889 F.2d 612, 619 (5th Cir.1989) (citing Masonite Corp. v. Williamson, 404 So.2d 565, 567 (Miss.1981)); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Bates, 954 F.2d 1081, 1086 (5th Cir.1992) (quoting Cycles); Walker v. Brown, 501 So.2d 358, 361 (Miss.1987) (“conversion requires an intent to exercise dominion or control over goods which is inconsistent with the true owner's rights”). It is the unauthorized act of dominion or ownership over another's property that marks the accrual of the limitations period. Likewise, as replevin is an action for recovery of personal property wrongfully taken or withheld, the statute begins to run when the property is wrongfully taken or withheld. See Griffin v. Jones, 161 Miss. 776, 137 So. 784 (Miss.1931); Johnson v. White, 21 Miss. 584 (Miss. Err. & App. 1850).

While not entirely clear, defendant appears to take the position that the King Estate's claims accrued, and the statute of limitations began to run at the time the King Estate reasonably should have discovered the existence of the documents at issue. In this vein, he points out that the documents were created more than fifty years ago and that the King Estate was incorporated over eighteen years ago; he then declares that “the King Estate has had over eighteen (18) years to discover the existence of these documents.” He argues, alternatively, that the statute of limitations expired in December 2010, three years after the documents were first discovered in the library basement at ECSU in December 2007 by a University employee.

Defendant has cited no authority, nor presented any argument for that matter, to suggest how these dates might have a bearing on when the limitations period commenced. In the court's opinion, the date the King Estate was incorporated is plainly irrelevant, particularly when one considers that the King Estate was actually established fifteen years earlier, in 1968. But the date the Estate was established is equally irrelevant to the determinative question of when the conversion occurred. Likewise, the date an ECSU employee discovered the documents at the University is of no import in the limitations analysis. As plaintiff observes, the statute of limitations for conversion and replevin is not a “discovery” statute. See West v. Nationwide Trustee Servs., Inc., No. 1:09cv295–LG–RHW, 2009 WL 103159, *2–3 (S.D.Miss. Dec. 16, 2009) (“ ‘[I]t is immaterial whether the owner knew of the conversion or not, if no fraud is practiced to prevent his knowledge.’ ”)(quoting Wilder v. St. Joseph Hosp., 225 Miss. 42, 82 So.2d 651, 652 (Miss.1955)).

For its part, plaintiff argues in response to defendant's motion that the conversion did not occur until defendant refused to return the property on demand, and that therefore, in this case, the statute of limitations on plaintiff's claims did not begin to run until, at the earliest, June 29, 2010, when the Estate first contacted defendant Ballou making its ownership interest known and demanding return of the documents. See Greenline Equip. Co. v. Covington Cty. Bank, 873 So.2d 950, 955 (Miss.2002)(stating “[t]here is no conversion until the title of the lawful owner is made known and resisted.”). In making this argument, plaintiff correctly recognizes that the determination of when a cause of action for conversion accrues depends on the circumstances of the alleged conversion. If the original taking of the goods was tortious, the wrongful taking establishes the conversion and the statute of limitation begins to run on the date the property was wrongfully taken, and no demand is necessary. Witherspoon v. Blewett, 47 Miss. 570 (Miss.1873). See also Johnson v. White, 21 Miss. 584 (Miss. Err. & App. 1850) (“[W]hen goods are tortiously taken, the statute of limitations begins to run from the taking, for the tortious act is of itself a conversion.”); West v. Nationwide Trustee Servs., Inc., No. 1:09cv295–LG–RHW, 2009 WL 5103159, *2–3 (S.D.Miss. Dec. 16, 2009)(stating that in a conversion action, the statute of limitations begins to run when the goods are tortiously taken) (citing Wilder v. St. Joseph Hosp., 225 Miss. 42, 82 So.2d 651, 652 (Miss.1955)). However, if the property “came to defendant's possession from plaintiff or a third party, and [is] merely detained, a demand and refusal of delivery is necessary before suit,” Witherspoon v. Blewett, 47 Miss. 570, and in that circumstance, the claim will accrue upon demand and refusal of delivery. Plaintiff's error herein lies in its classifying this case as falling in this second category of cases, when it plainly belongs in the first.

Plaintiff reasons that because Mrs. Ballou obtained possession of the subject documents as a result of her employment with Dr. King and she was authorized to have possession of the documents (not ownership) in keeping with her job...