Hooker v. Greer
81 So. 3d 1103
Miss.2012Background
- Hooker filed a lis pendens in Carroll County (Aug. 2005) asserting a $141,000 claim against Greer's land, with no subsequent action on the claim by Hooker.
- Greer later sued to remove cloud on title (May 28, 2009) and sought attorney's fees; Hooker canceled the lis pendens (Nov. 11, 2009) before the hearing.
- The trial court awarded Greer attorney's fees under the Litigation Accountability Act (LAA) based on Hooker's lis pendens filing and denial of impropriety, deeming it frivolous.
- Hooker contended the lis pendens filing was not an 'action' under the LAA and LAA should not sanction such filings; the court disagreed on the LAA's scope at first but the supreme court reversed part of the award.
- Hooker's counterclaim alleged an unwritten partnership and sought $141,000, but the trial court granted summary judgment for Greer, holding the claim time-barred under a three-year statute of limitations.
- On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the lis pendens filing was without substantial justification but vacated the attorney's fees award under the LAA and remanded for reconsideration, while affirming the three-year limitations hold on the counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| LAA applicability to lis pendens sanctions | Hooker argued LAA does not apply to the lis pendens filing. | Greer argued LAA sanctions can apply to frivolous defenses or actions arising within a civil action, including defenses to removal. | LAA sanctions not based on lis pendens filing; vacated and remanded for proper LAA analysis. |
| Attorney's fees based on lis pendens defense | Hooker contends the award was improper under LAA as tied to the lis pendens filing itself, not a defense. | Greer argues the LAA may sanction frivolous defenses or claims arising within the action to remove cloud on title. | Court vacates the fee award and remands for reconsideration of fees related to the defense to removal of cloud on title. |
| Counterclaim timeliness | Hooker maintains the counterclaim could fit a ten-year constructive trust framework if warranted. | Greer argues the claim is not purely equitable and is barred by the three-year statute of limitations. | Counterclaim is time-barred under the three-year statute; affirmed summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aldridge v. Aldridge, 527 So. 2d 96 (Miss. 1988) (lis pendens provides notice of a claim on land)
- Rose v. Tullos, 994 So. 2d 734 (Miss. 2008) (LAA governs attorney's fees and requires explicit reasons)
- Bank of Miss. v. Southern Mem'l Park, Inc., 677 So. 2d 186 (Miss. 1996) (LAA applicability in relation to Rule 11 sanctions)
- Winters v. AmSouth Bank, 964 So. 2d 595 (Miss. App. 2007) (ten-year vs three-year limitations for equitable vs legal claims)
- Wholey v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., 530 So. 2d 136 (Miss. 1988) (fiduciaries may be held constructively for secret profits; ten-year limit applies)