Singing River Mob, LLC v. Jackson Cnty.
Decision Date | 18 November 2021 |
Docket Number | 2019-IA-01630-SCT, NO. 2019-IA-01653-SCT |
Citation | 342 So.3d 140 |
Parties | SINGING RIVER MOB, LLC v. JACKSON COUNTY, Mississippi, and Singing River Health System Singing River Health System d/b/a Ocean Springs Hospital d/b/a Singing River Hospital v. Singing River MOB, LLC, an Alabama Limited Liability Company |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JOHN N. BOLUS, PETER C. ABIDE, Biloxi
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: WILLIAM LEE GUICE, III, Biloxi, MARIA MARTINEZ, G. TODD BUTLER, MALLORY K. BLAND, Jackson, PATRICK R. BUCHANAN, Pascagoula, MICHAEL E. BRUFFEY
EN BANC.
CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This matter comes before the Court as a consolidation of two appeals from a partial summary-judgment order by the Chancery Court of Jackson County. In the first appeal, Singing River MOB, LLC, an Alabama Limited Liability Company (MOB), argues that the leases between itself and Singing River Health System (SRHS) and the lease between Jackson County, Mississippi (County), and SRHS are valid and that the chancery court erred by finding the leases invalid under Mississippi's "minutes rule." KPMG, LLP v. Singing River Health Sys. , 283 So. 3d 662, 669 (Miss. 2018). In the second appeal, Jackson County and SRHS contend that the chancery court erred by fashioning its own equitable relief as a result of the first ruling. MOB also raised its own objection as to the manner in which the equitable relief was fashioned. After careful review, we affirm and remand the partial summary-judgment order of the Chancery Court of Jackson County as to the first appeal (No. 2019-IA-01630-SCT); however, we reverse and remand that order as to the second appeal (No. 2019-IA-01653-SCT).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. SRHS is a community hospital owned by Jackson County, established under community-hospital statutes and governed by a board of trustees. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-13-10 to -107 (Rev. 2018). The question before the Court involves the validity of certain leases between the County, SRHS and MOB. At the heart of this case is a medical office building project dependant upon those leases.
¶3. In the late 2000s, SRHS began to consider the prospect of building a medical office building on its medical campus, located in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The purpose of this project would be to provide a modern medical space to serve the Pascagoula area that would, among other things, enhance the medical community's image, provide a competitive advantage in physician recruiting, add space for a neuroscience center and develop an outpatient center. To that end, the parties came together for the purpose of forming the necessary leases for this project.
¶4. On March 16, 2009, the Board of Supervisors of Jackson County (County Board) unanimously passed a resolution, included in its minutes, that authorized the execution of a lease of real property to SRHS for the purpose of constructing the medical office building. The resolution included certain conditions, including that SRHS may not encumber the property without approval by the County Board, that SRHS is authorized to sublease the property to Johnson Development, LLC (Johnson Development), and that any other sublease of the property by SRHS must be approved by the County Board.
¶5. The County and SRHS then entered into their lease on March 26, 2009. The County Board ratified by resolution, included in the minutes, the execution of this lease on April 6, 2009. The April 6, 2009 minutes of the County Board also included, by attachment, this lease between the County and SRHS. Specifically, the minutes show that "the Lease Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, has been finalized and the Board of Supervisors desires to ratify said Lease Agreement and spread upon its Minutes ." (Emphasis added.) This lease between the County and SRHS is known as the Prime Ground Lease.
¶6. The Board of Trustees of Singing River Health System (SRHS Board) also convened to discuss the medical office building project and, specifically, the terms of an agreement for such a project with MOB. The first board meeting was held on January 13, 2009, as shown on the minutes.1 At this meeting, the SRHS Board received presentations regarding the medical office building project that included, among other things, the project's history and objectives, the project's financial impact, a review of the project's financing and leasing plans and a review of the SRHS campus plan that included specific placement of the medical office building. During this time, the members of the SRHS Board received the following summary of terms of the project, verbatim:
This summary provided the foundation of the sublease arrangement between SRHS and MOB that would ultimately result in a separate written Secondary Ground Lease and Occupancy Subleases. Under these leases, SRHS would receive ground payments from MOB. The purpose of these payments was for MOB to build the medical office building. In return, MOB would receive occupancy payments from SRHS for SRHS's use of the medical office building. This January 13, 2009 summary was spread upon the minutes of the SRHS Board.
¶7. At this juncture, it is necessary to recognize two important facts. First, as indicated previously, while the SRHS Board discussed the medical office building project as it relates to discussions between SRHS and MOB, the record does not show that the SRHS Board minutes ever mentioned, or attached, the Prime Ground Lease between SRHS and the County. Second, Johnson Development was the original and intended sublessor in the medical office building project, particularly in the eyes of the County. This company's purpose was to develop the medical office building project by subleasing the property from SRHS that SRHS was in turn leasing from the County. As evidenced by the summary provided at the January 13, 2009 SRHS Board meeting, Johnson Development was ultimately replaced by MOB, one of the parties to this action. According to the record, "affiliates of Johnson Development established [MOB]." Specifically, James Milton...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Avoiding Common Pitfalls When Contracting With Public Boards In Mississippi
...2019). Importantly, the "minutes rule" must be satisfied as to each public board involved. See Singing River MOB, LLC v. Jackson Cnty., 342 So. 3d 140 (Miss. 2021) (although County Board attached lease to its minutes, it was not spread upon the minutes of the Singing River Health System Boa......
-
MS Supreme Court Allows Equitable Remedies Notwithstanding Statute Of Frauds, Overruling Prior Precedent
...allow equitable remedies in other areas where there may be no enforceable contract. See, e.g., Singing River MOB, LLC v. Jackson Cnty., 342 So. 3d 140, 152 (Miss. 2021) (finding contract to be unenforceable under "minutes rule" and reversing grant of equitable remedy because it "was neither......