United Companies Mortg. of Mississippi, Inc. v. Jones, 54645
| Decision Date | 20 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 54645,54645 |
| Parties | UNITED COMPANIES MORTGAGE OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. v. D. Russell JONES, Jr. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Robert L. Rogers, Jr., Gillespie & Rogers, Hattiesburg, for appellant.
W.O. Luckett, Jr., Dan Bing, Luckett Law Firm, Clarksdale, for appellee.
Before WALKER, DAN M. LEE and ROBERTSON, JJ.
United Companies Mortgage of Mississippi, Inc. (United) brought a legal malpractice action against D. Russell Jones, Jr., an attorney in Southhaven, Mississippi, in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi on May 7, 1982. This action was the result of title certificates issued by Jones on February 21, 1979, and March 22, 1979. Jones acted as closing attorney in a real estate loan transaction. The title certificates he prepared proved to be defective, and as a result United suffered a loss. Appellee Jones filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted based on his assertion that the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations for unwritten contracts as found in Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 15-1-29 (Supp.1984). A hearing was held, the trial court sustained the motion, and the complaint was dismissed as barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
United brings this appeal and argues that the applicable statute of limitations is found in Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 15-1-49 (1972) and that the action is not barred under this six-year statute of limitations. We agree.
Section 15-1-29 imposes a three-year limitation on an action on any unwritten contract. Code section 15-1-49 is a general statute for all actions not otherwise specifically provided for and imposes a six-year limitation.
In February, 1979, United contacted Jones and asked him to furnish the company with preliminary and final certificates of title on a parcel of real estate located in Shelby County, Tennessee. Jones was also asked to close the real estate loan on the property between United and Mr. and Mrs. Lee Branch. Jones had previously been the closing attorney for some 250 real estate loans at United's request.
Because the property the Branches were buying was in Tennessee, Jones contacted Record Data of Tennessee to provide the information necessary to prepare the title certificates. Record Data had provided Jones with title information before. According to Jones, Gene Taylor, the manager of United, initially suggested that Jones use Record Data for title information on Tennessee property.
Relying on the title certificates issued by Jones, United loaned $17,442.84 to the Branches, evidenced by a promissory note in the amount of $30,826.32. The note was executed on February 15, 1979, and secured by a first deed of trust on the property.
On April 22, 1980, the Chancery Court of Shelby County, Tennessee divested Jesse and Thelma Wallace and their grantees, the Branches, of title to all but 5.133 acres of the property. The title certificates prepared by Jones had covered ten acres. The 5.133 acres which remained did not include the house which was included in the real estate loan. On June 30, 1980, the trustee under the deed of trust between United and the Branches foreclosed against the property which remained. As a result of the foreclosure and sale there was a deficiency of $28,918.00. Jones and an associate handled the foreclosure on the Branch property for United.
The lower court in reaching its decision that the action was barred relied on Johnson v. Crisler, 156 Miss. 266, 125 So. 724 (1930). In Johnson the Court held that an action against an attorney on an oral contract to examine and certify to an abstract of title was barred by the three-year statute of limitations on any unwritten contract. The case treats the action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rittenhouse v. Mabry
...parties creates a prima facie presumption of a contractual relationship between them."); cf. United Companies Mortgage of Mississippi, Inc. v. Jones, 465 So.2d 1083, 1084 (Miss.1985) (stating that an action for legal malpractice may sound in tort or contract); Hutchinson v. Smith, 417 So.2d......
-
Singleton v. Stegall
...claim. See, e.g., Hickox By And Through Hickox v. Holleman, 502 So.2d 626, 636 (Miss.1987); United Companies Mortgage of Mississippi, Inc. v. Jones, 465 So.2d 1083, 1084 (Miss.1985); Hutchinson v. Smith, 417 So.2d 926, 927-28 (Miss.1982). No such issues appear today.2 The American Law Insti......
-
Trammell v. State
...asserted are, regardless of form, a liability for damages caused by negligence. (Emphasis added). In United Companies Mortgage of Miss. v. Jones, 465 So.2d 1083 (Miss.1985), and Hutchinson v. Smith, 417 So.2d 926 (Miss.1982), we considered the applicable statute of limitations for legal mal......
-
Smith v. Mississippi State Bar
...affords aggrieved clients various vehicles for the assertion of grievances against their lawyers. E.g., United Companies Mortgage of Miss., Inc. v. Jones, 465 So.2d 1083 (Miss.1985); Hutchinson v. Smith, 417 So.2d 926, 928 (Miss.1982). There are apparent to us no considerations of convenien......