State v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 27 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2015-CA-00598-SCT,2015-CA-00598-SCT |
| Parties | The State of Mississippi, By and Through Delbert Hosemann, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State and Trustee of the Public Tidelands Trust v. Kenneth F. Murphy, Ray J. Murphy and Audie R. Murphy |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: HUGH D. KEATING, JE'NELL B. BLUM, JONATHAN P. DYAL, K.C. HIGHTOWER, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LEE DAVIS THAMES, JR.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: PAUL R. SCOTT, ROBERT E. QUIMBY
EN BANC.
WALLER
,
¶ 1. The State of Mississippi entered into a Public Trust Tidelands lease with the City of Bay St. Louis to build a municipal harbor on beachfront property in the City. After the City began construction of the harbor, Kenneth F. Murphy, Ray J. Murphy, and Audie Murphy filed an inverse condemnation action, claiming that the State and the City had taken and damaged their property without compensation. The case was tried in Hancock County Circuit Court, and a jury ultimately found the State liable to the Murphys for $644,000 in damages. The State now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm the jury's verdict.
¶ 2. This litigation arises from a dispute between brothers Ray, Audie, and Ken Murphy (“the Murphys”), and the State of Mississippi1 and City of Bay St. Louis over the ownership of beachfront property located within the City. The property is comprised of two adjoining parcels situated on parts of Lots 2 and 4 in the Second Ward of the City of Bay St. Louis, Hancock County, Mississippi.2 The property is bounded to the west by Beach Boulevard (formerly Front Street) and to the east by the Bay of St. Louis, generally speaking. The exact eastern boundary of the property is the subject of the litigation.
¶ 3. The record in this case contains deeds dating back to 1905 for Lot 4 and 1924 for Lot 2. The 1905 deed to Lot 4 describes the relevant boundaries of the property as follows:
Beginning at an iron rod at a point [illegible] of the North boundary line of the [illegible] on a course South 70° East intersecting the East line of Front Street, thence South 70° East eighty one and five tenths feet more or less to an iron rod at average high water tide on the Western bank of the Bay of St. Louis; thence South 29° 25' West sixty four and seven tenths feet (64.7 ft.) to an iron rod; thence North 70° West eighty-one and five tenths feet (81.5 ft.) more or less to a stake on the Eastern line of Front Street, thence North 29° 25' East along the Eastern Line of said Front Street sixty four and seven tenths feet (64.7 ft.) to the place of beginning.
The 1924 deed to Lot 2 contains a similar description of the relevant boundaries:
Having a frontage on the eastern line of Front Street of sixty four and forty two hundredths (64.42) feet, more or less and extending back thence between parallel lines, running on a course south seventy (70) degrees east, a distance of eighty one and five-tenths (81.5) feet, more or less, to the water's edge of the Bay of St. Louis[.]
Between 1915 and 1917, a concrete seawall (“the Old Seawall”) was built along oceanfront property in Bay St. Louis, including Lots 2 and 4. The Old Seawall is depicted in the first (and only) official plat of the City of Bay St. Louis, which was completed by E.S. Drake in November 1922 (“the Drake Plat”). On the Drake Plat, the property lines for Lots 2 and 4 extend beyond the Old Seawall.3
¶ 4. The legal descriptions of Lots 2 and 4 have changed over time. In 1932, A.A. Kergosien conveyed Lot 2 to his wife by warranty deed and altered the legal description of the property so that the north and south boundary lines ran “81.5 feet, more or less, or to the water's edge,” rather than “81.5 feet, more or less, to the water's edge[.]” This change appears in later deeds conveying Lot 2. In addition, deeds to Lot 4 began incorporating the Drake Plat as early as 1948, when Joseph Mauffray conveyed the southern thirty-two feet of Lot 4 to Alden Mauffray based on the following description: “The South 32 feet of Lot No. 4 of the Second Ward of the City of Bay St. Louis, as per the official plat of said City made by E.S. Drake, Civil Engineer, on file in the office of the Clerk in the Chancery Court of Hancock County, Mississippi.” No metes-and-bounds description for Lot 4 exists in these deeds.
The Murphy family acquires the property.
¶ 5. The Murphy family acquired the property in question through three separate transactions. First, in 1983, the Murphys' mother and stepfather each acquired an undivided one-half interest in the southern 35.7 feet of Lot 4. In 1989, Ray, Audie, and three other family members acquired Lot 2. Finally, in 1994, Audie Murphy acquired the remaining northern portion of Lot 4 via warranty deed. In 1999, Ray acquired sole ownership of Lot 2 from the other owners via quitclaim deed. Property tax maps admitted at trial reveal that Hancock County taxed the Murphys for property extending well beyond the Old Seawall.
¶ 6. The Murphy family used the property in question to run a beachfront restaurant called Dan B's, or Daniel's South Beach Restaurant & Bar (“the Restaurant”). The Murphys bought the Restaurant from their parents in 2004. A set of stairs was built over the Old Seawall to give the Restaurant's customers easier access to the beach, and the Murphys eventually constructed a sixty-foot deck onto the back of the Restaurant that extended beyond the Old Seawall and onto the beach. The Restaurant was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the Murphys never rebuilt it.
¶ 7. In 2004, Ray received a loan from Weldon and Loretta Frommeyer and conveyed a fifty-one percent interest in Lot 2 and the northern portion of Lot 4 to them as collateral. The Frommeyers quitclaimed the property back to Ray when he paid off the loan in 2007. In 2009, the Murphys' mother and stepfather conveyed the southern portion of Lot 4 to the Restaurant. Finally, in December 2011, the Restaurant conveyed the southern portion of Lot 4 to Ray, Audie, and Ken. At the same time, Ray conveyed Lot 2 and the northern portion of Lot 4 to himself, Audie and Ken. In sum, the Murphys had acquired title to all of the property in dispute by December 2011.
¶ 8. In 2001, Ray executed a “Specific Power of Attorney” appointing his son Darrell Murphy “my true and lawful agent and attorney-in-fact” and authorizing him to “contract for the sale of, sell, convey and warrant upon such terms and conditions and under such covenants as he shall think fit,” Lots 2 and 4. Acting under this authority, Darrell ordered a survey of Lots 2 and 4, which was conducted by James Clarke. According to the testimony at trial, the Clarke Survey is the only survey that was conducted on the property prior to the commencement of the instant litigation. The Clarke Survey significantly changed the legal descriptions of Lots 2 and 4, apparently to account for the accretion of almost two hundred feet of fastlands east of the Old Seawall. The Clarke Survey provides the following legal description for the property:
The Clarke survey was incorporated by reference in all subsequent deeds among the Murphys.
¶ 9. The record reveals that, on two separate occasions, the Murphys attempted to lease property beyond the Old Seawall from the Secretary of State. First, in 1996, the Murphys filed an application to lease property beyond the Old Seawall for the purpose of building a hotel development on the water. However, after a negative feasibility study, the Murphys ultimately abandoned this project. Margaret Bretz, an attorney in the Public Lands division of the Secretary of State's Office, wrote a letter in response to the Murphys' application noting that the State “would not have been able to offer a lease of the adjacent tidelands for the hotel site.” At trial, Ken explained that they had intended to build a pier from the hotel out into the water. He testified that his intent was to lease bottomlands from the State and did not intend to request a lease for property that his family owned, but that “[p]robably ... I didn't know what I was doing.”
¶ 10. In 2009, the Murphys filed a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. State
...for a new trial on these grounds was denied. We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. State v. Murphy , 202 So. 3d 1243, 1259 (Miss. 2016) (citing Steele v. Inn of Vicksburg, Inc. , 697 So. 2d 373, 376 (Miss. 1997) ). Willis cites Odom v. State , 355 So. 2d ......
-
Williams v. City of Batesville
...and where it appears that there is no intention or willingness of the taker to bring such proceedings.’ " State ex rel. Hosemann v. Murphy , 202 So. 3d 1243, 1251 (Miss. 2016) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Jackson Mun. Airport Auth. v. Wright , 232 So. 2d 709, 713 (Miss. 1970) ).¶42. Here, th......
-
Tippah Cnty. v. Lerose
...So. 3d 994 (Miss. 2019) (transferred to chancery court); City of Tupelo v. O'Callaghan , 208 So. 3d 556 (Miss. 2017) ; State v. Murphy , 202 So. 3d 1243 (Miss. 2016) ; Russell Real Prop. Servs., LLC v. State , 200 So. 3d 426 (Miss. 2016). Finally, we point out that the Mississippi Constitut......
-
Johnson & Johnson, Inc. v. Fortenberry
...party's case, is either so indisputable, or so deficient, that the necessity of a trier of fact has been obviated.’ " State v. Murphy , 202 So.3d 1243, 1251–52 (Miss. 2016) (quoting White v. Stewman , 932 So.2d 27, 32 (Miss. 2006) ). The nonmoving party " ‘must be given the benefit of all f......