Arlan Dorman v. Artis Franklin Power
2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 662
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Dorman executed a warranty deed dated January 7, 2008, conveying two tracts (13.2 acres and 11.5 acres) to Artis Power; Dorman later claimed he was induced by fraud and received inadequate compensation.
- Default judgment entered for Dorman in July 2009 after Power failed to answer; that judgment was later set aside when Robert and Cynthia Weathersby (claiming title via subsequent conveyances from Power to Baker/Humphries) moved to set it aside.
- Dorman filed an amended complaint (June 2011) alleging fraud, inadequate consideration, and alternatively title by adverse possession; he attached Mary Fulgham’s affidavit claiming she witnessed Power misrepresenting the deed (saying it was for ~3 acres) and that Dorman received no payment.
- Weathersbys moved for summary judgment (Feb. 2012); after a hearing the chancellor granted summary judgment (Sept. 22, 2014), confirming title in the Weathersbys, dismissing fraud for failure to plead with Rule 9(b) particularity, rejecting lack-of-consideration claim (deed recited consideration and Dorman offered no evidence to overcome the presumption), and finding adverse-possession proof inadequate.
- Dorman’s motion to amend (filed July 18, 2012) and the record show no ruling granting leave to amend; the chancery court’s summary-judgment order and final judgment were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud / fraudulent misrepresentation | Dorman: Power induced him to sign deed by false promises (loan, return of deed) and misrepresenting acreage knowing Dorman was illiterate; Fulgham affidavit corroborates | Weathersbys: Fraud not pleaded with the particularity required by M.R.C.P. 9(b); no admissible record evidence raising genuine issue | Affirmed — fraud claim dismissed for failure to plead with Rule 9(b) particularity; no genuine issue of material fact for trial |
| Inadequate consideration | Dorman: Fulgham affidavit says Power paid him nothing, so deed’s recitation of consideration is rebutted | Weathersbys: Deed expressly recites adequate consideration; Dorman presented no evidence sufficient to overcome the rebuttable presumption | Affirmed — recitation of consideration stands; affidavit insufficient to create a genuine fact issue |
| Adverse possession (10-year statutory requirement) | Dorman: Typo in complaint aside, he showed continuous possession dating to a 1993 deed (and asserted possession exceeding ten years) | Weathersbys: Record title and chain of conveyances show Dorman’s ownership period does not satisfy required continuous adverse possession element | Affirmed — Dorman failed to prove continuous, uninterrupted adverse possession for ten years |
Key Cases Cited
- Grand Legacy LLP v. Gant, 66 So.3d 137 (Miss. 2011) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- EDW Investments LLC v. Barnett, 149 So.3d 489 (Miss. 2014) (fraud must be pled with particularity; time/place/content of misrepresentation required)
- In re Estate of Law, 869 So.2d 1027 (Miss. 2004) (elements of fraud to be proven by clear and convincing evidence)
- Levens v. Campbell, 733 So.2d 753 (Miss. 1999) (fraud elements articulated)
- Lacy v. Morrison, 906 So.2d 126 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (fraud claims are fact-based and ordinarily not resolved on summary judgment absent absence of genuine dispute)
- Haygood v. First Nat’l Bank of New Albany, 517 So.2d 553 (Miss. 1987) (upholding summary judgment where jurors applying clear-and-convincing standard could not reasonably find fraud)
- Conliff v. Hudson, 60 So.3d 203 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (six-element test for adverse possession)
- Robertson v. Dombroski, 678 So.2d 637 (Miss. 1996) (Mississippi recognizes bona fide purchaser protections under race-notice principles)
- Am. Pub. Fin. Inc. v. Smith, 45 So.3d 307 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (bona fide purchaser for value without notice gains title despite adverse claims)