117 So. 3d 331
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bradleys sue Kelley Brothers, Gregory, and Clyde for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and misrepresentation arising from a Katrina debris-removal contract with Wayne County.
- Two versions of the contract exist: a recorded contract (Appendix A) and an unrecorded version (Appendix B) produced in discovery; they differ in section 2.2 concerning dumpsite responsibility.
- Bradleys allege Clyde, as a Wayne County supervisor, and his relatives profited from dumping debris on Bradleys’ land without compensation to Bradleys, aided by Kelley Brothers and Gregory.
- FOIA revealed the Bradleys’ contract copy differed from the recorded minutes, prompting questions about which version governed the relationship and duties.
- Summary judgments were granted: Kelley Brothers and Gregory on the unrecorded contract’s section 2.2; Clyde on MTCA pre-suit notice grounds; both reversed on appeal due to contract discrepancies and MTCA scope issues, with remand.
- Court notes the lack of transcript for the April 18, 2011 hearing and emphasizes material-fact issues tied to which contract controlled and Clyde’s individual vs. employment-related actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do conflicting contracts create triable issues on unjust enrichment and conspiracy? | Bradleys contend the recorded contract is not controlling; discrepancies show material fact for enrichment and conspiracy. | Kelley Brothers and Gregory rely on unrecorded contract language to show no choice and no enrichment; argue no fact issue. | Material fact issue exists; summary judgment reversed on this basis. |
| Was Clyde’s conduct within the MTCA pre-suit notice requirement? | Bradleys allege Clyde acted outside employment; MTCA notice should not apply. | Circuit court applied MTCA pre-suit notice to Clyde as a Board member. | MTCA pre-suit notice not required; reversal on MTCA basis and remand. |
| Is Clyde's alleged conduct within the scope of employment for MTCA applicability? | Clyde acted in his personal capacity to further Kelley Brothers and Gregory’s interests. | Actions flow from Clyde’s Board role and fall under MTCA unless outside scope. | Bradleys’ claims chiefly outside scope; MTCA applicability negated for this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roebuck v. McDade, 760 So.2d 12 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (summary judgment burden to show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Mitchell v. Nelson, 830 So.2d 635 (Miss. 2002) (post-judgment affidavits cannot be used to defeat summary judgment)
- Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., Inc., 891 So.2d 224 (Miss. 2005) (consider evidentiary matters in record for summary judgment)
- Mound Bayou Sch. Dist. v. Cleveland Sch. Dist., 817 So.2d 578 (Miss. 2002) (public bodies bound by minutes when terms appear in recorded contract)
- Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So.2d 358 (Miss. 1983) (basic summary judgment standard and evidence review)
- Simmons v. Thompson Mach. of Miss., Inc., 631 So.2d 798 (Miss. 1994) (evidentiary considerations in summary judgment review)
- Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Jeffcoat, 887 So.2d 777 (Miss. 2004) (elements of civil conspiracy)
- Braddock Law Firm v. Becnel, 949 So.2d 38 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (civil conspiracy requires an agreement and overt act)