White v. White
| Decision Date | 16 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-CP-00333-COA |
| Parties | WILLIAM T. WHITE AND WILLIAM T. WHITE D/B/A WHITE HAUL TRANSPORT, INC. APPELLANT v. PATSY B. WHITE APPELLEE |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND SMITH, JJ.
¶1. This is the third time that William White and his mother Patsy White, have been before this Court concerning related business disputes and conveyances of real property. See White v. White, 325 So.3d 666 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) ("White I"), cert. dismissed, 291 So.3d 1111 (Miss. 2020); White v. White, 314 So.3d 128 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) ("White II"), cert. denied, 314 So.3d 1161 (Miss. 2021). In this case, William's complaint asserted claims for damages and also sought to recover and to impose a constructive trust on certain land that he had deeded to Patsy. The circuit court dismissed William's complaint, holding that his claims for damages were barred by the statute of limitations and that the complaint failed to state a claim for a constructive trust. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the circuit court properly dismissed William's claims for damages based on the statute of limitations, but the circuit court erred to the extent that it dismissed William's claims to recover and impose a constructive trust on certain real properties that he previously deeded to Patsy. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
¶2. Prior to 2002, William worked for his parents, Larrye and Patsy White, in the family business of selling manufactured homes. In 2002, Larrye and Patsy desired to retire and sell their business and "sales center." William agreed to buy the sales center with owner financing from Larrye and Patsy. An essential term of the sale was that Larrye and Patsy agreed to provide William a $500,000 line of credit for the purchase of new inventory.
¶3. In 2005, Larrye and Patsy lost their largest line of credit which they had used to finance their line of credit to William. In addition, one of Larrye and Patsy's creditors sued them and obtained a judgment against them for approximately $800,000. Around the same time, Larrye and Patsy asked William to pay off his debt to them by obtaining a new loan against the sales center. Larrye and Patsy promised that they would then use the funds to continue to provide William a line of credit for new inventory. William obtained a $330,000 loan from a bank, which he used to pay off Larrye and Patsy. However, Larry and Patsye failed to honor their agreement to continue to provide William a line of credit. As a result, William eventually was left without product to sell, he was unable to meet his business's other financial obligations, and he was forced to close his business.
¶4. After Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005, William, Larrye and Patsy, and William's brother agreed to enter into a joint venture to provide temporary housing and other services to hurricane victims. The joint venture was operated through White Haul Transport Inc., a corporation that William owned. White Haul obtained several FEMA contracts, but its largest contract was with Coastal Bridge Company LLC. After several months of work by White Haul, Coastal Bridge breached the parties' contract and owed White Haul more than $1,000,000. In May 2006, William hired a New Orleans law firm to file suit against Coastal Bridge. The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Louisiana, progressed slowly. William incurred significant out-of-pocket expenses and "was forced to devote his time exclusively to the prosecution of the case." In order for William to "focus solely on the prosecution of the case and thereby maximize the [joint venturers'] recovery," Larrye and Patsy "agreed to fund the remainder of the . . . litigation" against Coastal Bridge and cover William's business loans and personal expenses.
¶5. Although William diligently pursued the Coastal Bridge litigation, Larrye and Patsy at times failed to honor their commitment to make payments on William's business and personal loans. As a result, properties that William or his business owned were subjected to foreclosure. In addition, the trial in the Coastal Bridge case had to be continued, resulting in a delay of more than a year. In March 2009, "[k]nowing that [their] actions had placed [William] in a vulnerable position, [Larrye and Patsy] drafted and demanded that [William] sign an assignment agreement" and a related agreement governing the disbursement of any recovery in the Coastal Bridge litigation. The disbursement agreement provided that any recovery would first be used to reimburse Larrye and Patsy for legal costs they had paid. The balance would be split among the joint venturers, but William agreed to repay Larrye and Patsy from his share for any expenses they had paid on his behalf.
¶6. In addition, in December 2008 and June 2009, Larrye and Patsy insisted that William deed them five properties he owned. William had over $500,000 in equity in the properties, which included his home and approximately thirty-six acres in Pike County and Lincoln County. William alleges that the deeds were not intended to be "absolute deeds but were deeds in lieu of deeds of trust"-i.e., a form of "collateral" for expenses Larrye and Patsy had paid on his behalf. William continued to exercise possession and otherwise act as the owner of the properties. William alleges that Larrye and Patsy promised to return the properties to him once they were repaid from any recovery in the Coastal Bridge litigation.[2] Larrye died in March 2010.
¶7. In May 2010, White Haul settled its lawsuit against Coastal Bridge for $597,000. After legal fees and expenses were deducted, White Haul received $536,700.59. Pursuant to the assignment agreement and disbursement agreement, White Haul paid Patsy almost all of its recovery-$528,500. However, Patsy failed to keep her commitments to William. According to William, Patsy refused to pay him his share of the recovery, as required by the disbursement agreement. In addition, Pasty refused to reconvey William's properties to him, as she had promised, even though she had been more than repaid for all expenses that she previously paid on William's behalf.
¶8. In 2014, Patsy filed suit against William in the Pike County Chancery Court. In that case, Patsy alleged that in 2008 and 2009, William orally agreed to transfer title to six properties to Patsy and Larrye in exchange for Patsy and Larrye's agreement to take over the mortgage payments on the properties. William executed deeds conveying five of the properties to Patsy and Larrye-the same five properties discussed above that are at issue in this case. Patsy alleged that by mistake or oversight William had failed to execute a deed conveying the sixth property. Patsy claimed that she did not discover William's failure to execute a deed for the sixth property until 2014, when she was in the process of selling it.
Patsy asked the chancery court to enforce the parties' oral agreement to transfer title to the property or, in the alternative, impose a constructive trust and compel William to transfer title. In July 2017, the chancery court dismissed Patsy's complaint, holding that her breach-of-contract claim was barred by both the statute of frauds and the statute of limitations and that her complaint failed to state a claim for a constructive trust. On appeal, this Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. We held that Patsy's breach-of-contract claim was barred by the statute of frauds but that her complaint stated a claim for a constructive trust that was not barred by the statute of limitations. See White I, 325 So.3d at 670-77 (¶¶13-44).
¶9. In 2014, Patsy also filed a complaint for eviction against William in the County Court of Pike County. The complaint sought to evict William from the property on which his home was situated. In March 2016, the county court entered an order of eviction. William appealed, but the circuit court dismissed the appeal because William failed to post the cost bond required by statute. William appealed the dismissal of his appeal, but this Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling. See White II, 314 So.3d at 128-29 (¶¶1-3).
¶10. In October 2016, while Patsy's lawsuits against William were pending in Pike County, William filed suit against Patsy in the Harrison County Chancery Court. William's complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages and asserted claims for, inter alia, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. William alleged that Patsy was liable for damages for refusing to give him his share of the Coastal Bridge settlement and for other "intentional, extreme, and outrageous" conduct. He also sought to recover and impose a constructive trust on the real properties that he had deeded to Patsy.[3]
¶11. Patsy moved to dismiss William's complaint for insufficiency of service of process, see M.R.C.P. 12(b)(5), arguing that William failed to serve her with process within 120 days after filing the complaint, see M.R.C.P. 4(h). In February 2018, rather than respond to Patsy's motion, William elected to dismiss his complaint without prejudice. See M.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(i).
¶12. Four days later, William filed a new and substantially similar complaint in the same court. Before William served Patsy with process, the chancery court sua sponte ruled that the case should be transferred to circuit court because it was "actually a breach of contract case in which damages [were]...
To continue reading
Request your trial