Arlin George Hatfield, III v. Deer Haven Homeowners Association, Inc.
2016-CP-00820-SCT
| Miss. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- Deer Haven Owners Association sued homeowner Arlin G. Hatfield III for injunctive relief alleging covenant violations (keeping fowl, erecting pens, and creating noxious conditions) and sought attorney’s fees under the subdivision covenants.
- Hatfield counterclaimed for declaratory relief; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Chancellor granted summary judgment to the Association based on Hatfield’s violation of Madison County zoning (added in an amended complaint), ordered removal of fowl, and initially denied attorney fees but later granted $50,250 after reconsideration.
- Hatfield appealed, challenging the fee award and asserting alleged judicial/attorney misconduct in filings that were not part of the trial record.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court struck Hatfield’s disrespectful and extra-record filings, affirmed the chancery court’s fee award, and granted the Association $25,125 in appellate attorney’s fees; one justice concurred in part and dissented as to the appellate-fee award for lack of evidentiary support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hatfield) | Defendant's Argument (Association) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Association could recover attorney fees under the covenant | Section 10.03 is discretionary but allows prevailing party fees; court should deny or limit fees because prevailing ground was added in the amended complaint | The covenant entitles the prevailing party in an action to reasonable fees fixed by the court; Association prevailed on enforcement so it is entitled to fees | Court: Fees recoverable under Section 10.03; awarding fees was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether fees must be limited to work on the specific theory on which Association prevailed (zoning) | Only fees attributable to the zoning theory are recoverable; invoices did not isolate such fees, so award should be denied | The action was an equitable enforcement of the Declaration; the Association prevailed on the enforcement claim generally, so fees for the action are recoverable | Court: Chancellor correctly applied broad covenant language; no requirement to segregate pre-amendment fees here |
| Whether fees incurred/paid by insurer’s counsel are recoverable to Association | Fees paid by insurer should not be awarded to the Association because Association did not pay them | Covenant entitles prevailing party to reasonable fees; covenant does not condition recovery on who actually paid the fees | Court: Covenant does not require that plaintiff personally paid fees; award may include insurer-retained counsel’s fees |
| Whether extra-record misconduct allegations and disrespectful filings should be considered | Hatfield attempted to raise bias and misconduct claims via documents filed after the record closed | Association moved to strike those portions as outside the record and disrespectful; disciplinary matters are for appropriate bodies | Court: Struck the disrespectful/extra-record materials and refused to consider those allegations on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 832 So. 2d 474 (Miss. 2002) (standard: appellate review of fee awards is abuse of discretion; reasonableness is for trial court)
- Hearn v. Autumn Woods Office Park Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, 757 So. 2d 155 (Miss. 2000) (attorney fees recoverable only where statute or contract provides)
- A & F Props., LLC v. Lake Caroline, Inc., 775 So. 2d 1276 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (fees limited to work on issues on which claimant prevailed; segregation required if multiple distinct claims)
- Indus. & Mech. Contractors of Memphis, Inc. v. Tim Mote Plumbing, LLC, 962 So. 2d 632 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (applied A & F rule to limit recoverable fees to prevailing claims)
- Dixie Contractors, Inc. v. Ballard, 249 So. 2d 653 (Miss. 1971) (permitting appellate fee awards where contractual fee recovery and appellee defends award on appeal)
- Key Constructors, Inc. v. H & M Gas Co., 537 So. 2d 1318 (Miss. 1989) (trial courts require evidentiary predicate for reasonable fee awards; fees cannot be conjured without proof)