Robinson v. Singh
| Decision Date | 21 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-CA-00397-COA,2019-CA-00397-COA |
| Citation | 303 So.3d 65 |
| Parties | Abby Johnson ROBINSON and New England Contractors LLC, Appellants v. Anshika SINGH, Appellee |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: TONEY ANTHONY BALDWIN, ABBY GALE ROBINSON, Jackson
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JONATHAN B. FAIRBANK, HARRY MONROE SIMPKINS
BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., TINDELL AND C. WILSON, JJ.
J. WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. In June 2008, Abby Robinson and Anshika Singh entered into the first of a series of agreements under which Singh loaned Robinson money to be repaid within ninety days. The first agreement was written and signed by both parties; the second agreement was written and signed by Robinson only; and the remaining agreements were oral agreements on the same basic terms. Robinson made repayments to Singh until May 2010. Robinson paid back the initial loan, but Singh claimed that Robinson still owed her about $60,000. In September 2011, Singh sued Robinson for breach of contract in the County Court of Madison County. Robinson answered and asserted a number of counterclaims against Singh.
¶2. The case eventually proceeded to trial in July 2017. At trial, Robinson admitted that she signed the initial agreement and testified that she eventually repaid that loan in full. She claimed that her signature on the second agreement was forged, she denied entering into any other loan agreements, and she claimed that except for the first loan, all payments she received from Singh were simply gifts from a friend. The jury returned a $100,000 verdict in favor of Singh.
¶3. Robinson appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence; that the trial judge should have granted a new trial; that Singh's claim was barred by the statute of limitations; that the trial judge erred by allowing video testimony from the notary public who notarized the second written agreement; and that the case should have been dismissed for a lack of prosecution. The circuit court held that all of Robinson's claims were waived or without merit and affirmed the judgment of the county court. Robinson appealed again, raising the same issues. After review, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶4. On June 17, 2008, Abby Robinson and Anshika Singh signed an agreement for Singh to loan Robinson $102,375. The agreement provided that Robinson would repay the $102,375 loan within ninety days. The agreement also required Robinson to "pay a sum of $15,000" to Singh. Later, there was a dispute as to whether the $15,000 payment was intended as a repayment of principal or as a payment in addition to the principal.
¶5. At the time of the agreement, Robinson was forty-one years old and owned and operated a construction business.1 Singh was twenty-two years old, had recently obtained a bachelor's degree in accounting from Mississippi College, and was pursuing a master's degree in finance and accounting. Singh and her mother owned and operated Ansh Food Mart on Northside Drive in Jackson, which Singh's parents had opened in 1992.
¶6. Robinson's husband Ricky was an officer with the Jackson Police Department. Ricky patrolled the area near the Food Mart, and he often spent time there visiting Singh, her mother, and their employees. Singh had known Ricky since 2000 or 2001 and described him as a "family friend."
¶7. In June 2008, Robinson and Ricky asked Singh for a loan. Singh did not know Robinson at the time and had not heard of her construction company, but she agreed to make the loan based on her friendship with Ricky. Robinson drafted the loan agreement, which she and Singh signed on June 17, 2008. Singh gave Robinson a check for $92,175 made payable to Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company.2 Robinson's construction company, New England Contractors LLC, is listed on the check as the remitter.
¶8. Singh testified that Robinson came back to the Food Mart a few days later and asked for more money. According to Singh, Robinson prepared a written agreement for Singh to loan Robinson an additional $17,500 to be repaid within ninety days. A copy of the agreement was introduced at trial. It appears to have been signed by Robinson on June 23, 2008, and was notarized by Mary Ann Grant. However, Robinson denied that she signed the second agreement and denied that any such agreement ever existed. Singh gave Robinson a check dated June 18, 2008, for $17,500 made payable to New England Contractors, but Robinson claimed at trial that this was just a gift from one friend to another, not a loan.
¶9. Robinson began making repayments to Singh. However, Singh also gave Robinson an additional $43,400 between June 30, 2008, and September 16, 2008. The additional payments from Singh to Robinson were not the subject of any written agreement. Singh testified that they were loans based on oral agreements between the parties, while Robinson testified that the payments were just gifts between friends. Singh testified that as with the written agreements, Robinson suggested the terms of the loan, including repayment within ninety days. Singh presented evidence at trial that she made the following loans to New England Contractors pursuant to oral agreements on the following dates:
Thus, from June 17 to September 16, 2008, Singh loaned (according to Singh) Robinson a total of $153,075.
¶10. Robinson made total repayments to Singh of $106,300 from July 2, 2008, to May 4, 2010. Robinson's final payment was made on May 4, 2010. Singh testified that she told Robinson her failure to repay the loans within ninety days, as promised, was unacceptable. Robinson told Singh to hire a lawyer and that they would take it up in court.
¶11. At trial, Singh contended that the original agreement was ambiguous as to the purpose of the $15,000 payment from Robinson to Singh. She wanted the contract to be construed against Robinson because Robinson drafted it. Singh also alleged that Robinson had promised to pay her interest, although she testified that the parties never agreed on an interest rate, and she admitted that neither of the written agreements mentioned interest.
¶12. Robinson testified that she had more than repaid the original loan by paying Singh $106,300. She claimed that the extra money was another instance of money exchanged between friends and that the additional $60,900 that Singh gave her after June 17 was simply a series of gifts from her friend. She testified that she and Singh often did favors and gave each other gifts without expectation of repayment. Robinson also denied signing the June 23 loan agreement for $17,500.
¶13. In addition, Robinson claimed that Singh drafted the original written agreement. She testified that the $15,000 payment provided for in the June 17 agreement was simply a gift between friends. Robinson claimed that her friendship with Singh came to an end in 2010 after Singh asked her to do some "unethical" things involving Robinson's construction business. Robinson also alleged that Singh was overcharging Robinson's construction employees for check-cashing services.
¶14. After Robinson testified and denied signing or even knowing about the June 23, 2008 loan agreement (for $17,500), Singh asked the court to allow the notary public who notarized the agreement, Mary Ann Grant, to testify via Skype. Robinson objected to Grant's testimony, but the court overruled Robinson's objection. In 2008, Grant worked at a branch of Trustmark National Bank on Northside Drive in Jackson and was a licensed notary public.3 Grant testified that she maintained a log book of documents that she notarized and that she kept the log book and her seal in a locked desk drawer. Her log book from 2008 showed that on June 17, 2008, she acknowledged Robinson's signature on a contract. A signature, purportedly Robinson's, appeared next to her name in the log book, along with Robinson's home address and driver's license number. Grant's log book also showed that she acknowledged Robinson's signature on another contract on June 23, 2008. That entry also included Robinson's home address, driver's license number, and signature.
¶15. Grant testified that her usual procedure as a notary public was to check the signatory's identification and record the same in her log book. She also recorded the date and time of the acknowledgment and the type of document notarized, and she then obtained the signatory's address and signature. Grant testified that, nine years after the fact, she did not have an independent recollection of notarizing the contracts at issue. However, she also testified that she had no reason to believe that anyone other than Abby Robinson signed the contracts. On cross-examination, Grant denied that she frequented the Food Mart or that she and Singh were friends or even acquaintances. She also denied that anyone else had access to her log book or her seal.
¶16. The trial judge instructed the jury on the general principles of contract law and breach of contract. The jury was also given the following definition on damages:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stowe v. Edwards
...235 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).7 A claim for breach of contract is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. See, e.g. , Robinson v. Singh , 303 So. 3d 65, 74 (¶32) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). Covenants are contractual in nature, and an action to enforce covenants is akin to a claim for b......