Putney v. Sanford

• Decision Date: 23 July 2019
• Docket Number: NO. 2018-CA-00454-COA,2018-CA-00454-COA
• Citation: 282 So.3d 627
• Parties: Allen John PUTNEY and Linda Louise Putney, Appellants v. Danny R. SANFORD, Appellee
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

282 So.3d 627

Allen John PUTNEY and Linda Louise Putney, Appellants

v.Danny R. SANFORD, Appellee

NO. 2018-CA-00454-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

July 23, 2019

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: ROBERT WENDELL JAMES

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: COREY DANIEL GIBSON, LAUREL

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., McDONALD AND C. WILSON, JJ.

C. WILSON, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Danny R. Sanford filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Allen John Putney and Linda Louise Putney (the Putneys) in the Covington County Chancery Court.¹ In his complaint, Sanford requested an order from the chancery court declaring that title to two parcels of land be vested solely in his name. On June 27, 2017, the chancellor entered a judgment in favor of Sanford, denying the Putneys' motions to dismiss and counter-claims and determining that Sanford be vested with title to all of the real property requested.

¶2. Upon denial of their general motion for reconsideration, the Putneys filed a notice of appeal from the declaratory judgment and the order denying reconsideration. The Putneys raise the following issues: (1) whether Sanford's claim is barred for lack of privity of contract between Sanford and the Putneys; (2) whether Sanford failed to join a necessary party to the action; (3) whether Sanford's claim is barred by the doctrines of estoppel and/or laches; and (4) whether Sanford's petition for declaratory judgment failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

FACTS

¶3. This case involves a dispute over whether the Putneys intended to convey two parcels of real property located in Covington County, Mississippi. The facts of this case are largely undisputed.

¶4. In November 2012, the Putneys transferred 196 acres to Carl Mann via warranty deed (the "Putney-Mann deed") and pursuant to a contract and agreement for the sale and purchase of real property (the "contract"). In June 2015, Mann transferred the same 196 acres to Sanford via warranty deed (the "Mann-Sanford deed"). Both deeds were prepared by attorney B. Scott Buffington.

¶5. Shortly after purchasing the property from Mann, Sanford became aware of an error in the land description contained in Tract 1 of the Putney-Mann deed. Buffington filed an affidavit of scrivener's error to correct the error in August 2015. In January 2016, Sanford filed his petition for declaratory judgment, requesting that title to the two disputed parcels of land be vested solely in his name. A trial on the matter was held on January 26, 2017, and on May 30, 2017.

¶6. At trial, Mann testified that he intended to buy the 196 acres that was described in the contract. Neither Mann nor the Putneys knew there was an error in the land description until after Sanford purchased the property and engaged Buffington to file the affidavit of scrivener's error to correct the Putney-Mann deed. Sanford testified that he intended to purchase the property described in the Mann-Sanford deed, which included the same 196 acres that was described in the contract that merged into the Putney-Mann deed. Mr. Putney testified that he did not intend to convey either parcel of land. Despite this, Mr. Putney testified that he signed both the contract and the Putney-Mann deed, and that the instruments were sworn and truthful. Mr. Putney also conceded on two separate occasions (on cross-examination and redirect) that he intended to sell to Mann 194 of the approximately 196 acres.²

¶7. In its June 27, 2017 declaratory judgment, the chancery court found by clear and convincing evidence that the Putney-Mann deed contained a mistake in the Tract 1 land description. The court also found that the affidavit of scrivener's error properly corrected the Putney-Mann deed to reflect the parties' intentions. And the court found that the Putneys intended to convey the property described in the Mann-Sanford deed—the entire 196 acres originally transferred by the Putneys to Mann and then by Mann to Sanford. The court thereafter dismissed both of the Putneys' motions to dismiss, as well as their counter-claims. The court vested title to all of the real property described in the Mann-Sanford deed to Sanford.

¶8. The Putneys subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration on July 10, 2017, which the chancery court denied in an order entered February 22, 2018. Upon denial of their general motion for reconsideration, the Putneys filed a notice of appeal from the declaratory judgment and from the order denying reconsideration. The Putneys raise the following issues: (1) Whether Sanford's claim is barred for lack of privity of contract between Sanford and the Putneys; (2) whether Sanford failed to join a necessary party to the action; (3) whether Sanford's claim is barred by the doctrines of estoppel and/or laches; and (4) whether Sanford's petition for declaratory judgment failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.³

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶9. While the decision to grant declaratory judgment relief is discretionary, the judgment's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Sledge v. Grenfell Sledge and Stevens PLLC , 263 So. 3d 655, 661 (¶12) (Miss. 2018).

ANALYSIS

¶10. Although not raised by either party, we must address the issue of whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider the Putneys' appeal. See Michael v. Michael , 650 So. 2d 469, 471 (Miss. 1995) ("Whether raised by the parties or not, this Court is required to note its own lack of jurisdiction."). "A timely-filed notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to invoking this Court's review." Massey v. Oasis Health & Rehab of Yazoo City LLC , 269 So. 3d 1242, 1249 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). Generally, "the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Id. at 1249 (¶14) (quoting M.R.A.P. 4(a) ). But under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(d), if a party files a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59, "the time for appeal for all parties runs from the entry of the order disposing of the last such motion outstanding." Rule 59(e) provides that "[a] motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed not later than ten days after entry of the judgment ." (Emphasis added). " Rule 59(e)'s ten-day deadline and the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal are ‘absolute’ and ‘inflexible’ and may not be extended in civil cases." Massey , 269 So.3d at 1250 (¶17) (quoting Wilburn v. Wilburn , 991 So. 2d 1185, 1191 (¶11) (Miss. 2008) ). "[A]n untimely Rule 59 motion does not toll the thirty-day time period to file a notice of appeal." Id. (internal quotation mark omitted).

¶11. Here, the chancery court entered its declaratory judgment in Sanford's favor on June 27, 2017. The Putneys filed their motion for reconsideration on July 10, 2017—13 days after the chancery court's entry of judgment. Applying the time standards outlined in Rule 59(e), the Putneys' motion should have been filed no later than July 7, 2017. Thus, the Putneys' motion for reconsideration was untimely, and, under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), the Putneys' time for appeal was not tolled by their post-trial motion. The Putneys did not file their notice of appeal until March 22, 2018, which was well past thirty days after the chancery court's entry of judgment on June 26, 2017. We therefore find that the Putneys' appeal is untimely.

¶12. But Sanford did not object to the timeliness of the Putneys' motion for reconsideration before the chancery court, and no party raises the timeliness of the Putneys' Rule 59(e) motion or their notice of appeal in this Court. Both Massey and Wilburn involved a similar procedural posture, and we are bound to follow the Mississippi Supreme Court's holding in Wilburn . There, our Supreme Court treated the appeal as timely and exercised jurisdiction even though the appeal was untimely because the appellant filed her Rule 59(e) motion a day late. Wilburn , 991 So. 2d at 1190-91 (¶¶11-13). "In substance, it appears that the Supreme Court deemed [the appellant's] Rule 59 motion timely because [the appellee] failed to raise the issue in the chancery court, which meant that her appeal was also timely and that the Court had appellate jurisdiction." Massey , 269 So.3d at 1251 (¶18) (citing Wilburn , 991 So. 2d at 1191, 1194-95 (¶¶12-13, 20-25) ); see also Brown v. Blue Cane Cowart Tippo Water Assoc. Inc. , 2018-CA-00242-COA, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2019 WL 2353421 at *4 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. June 4, 2019) (noting that the Supreme Court has relaxed the strict enforcement of time limits for filing appeals in cases where post-trial motions are not timely filed); Walker v. May , 166 So. 3d 613, 614-15 (¶¶5, 9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (reaching the merits of an appeal "in deference to [ Wilburn ]," even though "this Court [did] not have jurisdiction"); cf. DeSoto County v. Standard Constr. Co. Inc. , 2018-CC-00027-COA, ––– So.3d ––––, –––– – ––––, 2019 WL 276038 at *2-5 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2019) (declining to address merits of the case where a motion to dismiss appeal as untimely was filed). As in Massey and Walker , we follow Wilburn 's instruction and address the merits of the Putneys' appeal.

I. Whether Sanford had standing to seek declaratory judgment.

¶13. In support of their first assignment of error, the Putneys assert that Sanford has no cause of action against them that would allow correction of the error contained in the Putney-Mann deed. Specifically, the Putneys contend that there is no privity of contract between Sanford and them because the Putneys did not sign a contract or a warranty deed in favor of Sanford. Similarly, in their fourth assignment of error, the Putneys contend that Sanford's petition for declaratory judgment failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We find the Putneys' assignments of error on these points to be misplaced.

¶14....