Franklin N. Williams v. US Bank Trust, N.A.
239 So. 3d 540
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2004 Franklin Williams purchased a five‑acre parcel (Parcel B) from Dan Boone; the warranty deed erroneously referenced the wrong section and county but indexing and a later quitclaim with a recorded Hattaway survey established the correct Parcel B description.
- Williams’s purchase-money deed of trust securing a $106,000 note contained the same scrivener’s errors as the original deed.
- A separate conveyance error by Boone created a temporary conflict in the chain of title, later cured by subsequent deeds; the recorded curative instruments consistently described the five‑acre Parcel B.
- After Williams defaulted, US Bank (successor/assignee) credit‑bid at the foreclosure sale and received a substitute trustee’s deed using the erroneous description; Williams refused to vacate.
- US Bank filed for declaratory relief and reformation of the deed of trust to correct the legal description to match the recorded curative survey/deed; the chancery court granted summary judgment for US Bank.
- Williams appealed, raising defenses including election of remedies, equitable estoppel, unclean hands (and FDCPA claims), and challenging the affidavits; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reformation / declaratory relief to correct scrivener’s error in deed of trust | Williams argued foreclosure invalid due to erroneous legal description | US Bank argued parties intended conveyance of the surveyed five acres and deed of trust should be reformed to that description | Court affirmed reformation; parties’ intent and recorded curative instruments supported summary judgment for US Bank |
| Election of remedies | Williams contended remedies conflicted and barred reformation/foreclosure | US Bank contended remedies are not inconsistent and defense waived at trial | Defense waived for failure to raise; even on merits, remedies not inconsistent; rejected |
| Equitable estoppel | Williams claimed Bank’s conduct induced reliance preventing reformation/foreclosure | US Bank: no representation by bank relied upon by Williams; no change of position or prejudice | Williams failed to show reliance or prejudice; estoppel fails |
| Unclean hands / FDCPA claim | Williams alleged Bank’s counsel engaged in fraudulent/unlawful conduct and FDCPA violations | US Bank noted issues raised too late and insufficient to bar equitable relief | Court declined to consider FDCPA arguments raised first on appeal; unclean hands not shown |
| Admissibility / weight of affidavits | Williams argued his filings should be treated as affidavit and Lopez’s affidavit lacked personal knowledge | US Bank submitted trustee Lopez’s sworn affidavit relying on land records and bank files; Williams offered no contradicting evidence | Williams did not submit a proper affidavit; Lopez’s uncontested affidavit was sufficient; court properly relied on it |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Hoss, 869 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2004) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Galloway v. Travelers Ins., 515 So. 2d 678 (Miss. 1987) (burden when opposing summary judgment)
- Flowers v. Boolos (In re Estate of Smith), 204 So. 3d 291 (Miss. 2016) (reformation to reflect parties’ intent)
- Veterans Admin. v. Bullock, 180 So. 2d 610 (Miss. 1965) (reformation of instruments)
- Walters v. Merch. & Mfr. Bank, 67 So. 2d 714 (Miss. 1953) (equitable reformation)
- Birchett v. Anderson, 133 So. 129 (Miss. 1931) (reformation principles)
- Wright v. Henley, 158 So. 3d 1166 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (reformation precedent)