340 So.3d 378
Miss. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Back Bay Fuel & Ice (lessee) leased property at 598 Bayview Ave., Biloxi, with an option to renew; used the site as an icehouse and fuel dock.
- Hurricane Katrina destroyed the original diesel tank in 2005; purchaser Michael Cooper replaced the tank in 2006, later found to sit outside the leased area.
- In 2019 purchaser Biloxi Dock & Ice (BDI) commissioned SEMS testing that found PAH contamination in soil exceeding MDEQ Tier 1 TRG standards.
- BDI (assignee of the lease) notified Back Bay that the contamination was a lease default; SEMS performed Phase III testing and remediated soil at BDI’s direction at a cost of $74,001.50.
- County court found no proof Back Bay caused the contamination, noted absence of regulatory citations, and ruled in favor of Back Bay (also finding adverse possession/equitable estoppel); the circuit court upheld that ruling.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding BDI failed to prove lease default and therefore was not entitled to possession, remediation costs, or fees.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Back Bay defaulted under the lease by causing environmental contamination | BDI: SEMS testing shows PAHs above MDEQ guidance — lessee violated environmental covenant and is in default | Back Bay: No evidence lessee caused contamination; no agency citations; inspections and tests did not show violations | Held: BDI failed to prove lessee caused contamination; county court’s factual finding of no default is supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether BDI met its burden in unlawful-entry-and-detainer to obtain possession | BDI: Proven default warrants summary remedy and possession | Back Bay: Burden rests on plaintiff; evidence insufficient to show unlawful withholding | Held: Burden on BDI; it did not carry burden, so possession not awarded |
| Entitlement to remediation costs, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees | BDI: Default entitles it to recover remediation costs ($74,001.50), interest, and fees under lease | Back Bay: No default proven, so no basis for cost recovery | Held: Costs and fees premised on default; because no default, these claims fail |
| Standard of review: de novo vs. substantial-evidence/deferential review | BDI: Issues involve statutory/regulatory interpretation and lease terms — argues for de novo review | Back Bay: County court factual findings should be afforded deference | Held: Factual findings by the county court are reviewed for substantial evidence and not manifestly wrong; legal questions de novo — here outcome rested on facts, so deferential review applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Turnage v. Brooks, 301 So. 3d 760 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (appellate deference to county court factual findings)
- Bacallao v. Madison County, 269 So. 3d 139 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (same)
- Mississippi Dep’t of Env’t Quality v. Pacific Chlorine Inc., 100 So. 3d 432 (Miss. 2012) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- KGC Properties Inc. v. Triangle Maintenance Servs. LLC, 120 So. 3d 986 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (factual-findings review limited; not de novo)
- Sistrunk v. Majure, 192 So. 5 (Miss. 1939) (burden of proof in unlawful entry and detainer cases)