Jerry P. Mize v. Westbrook Construction Company of Oxford, LLC
146 So. 3d 344
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Jerry Mize bought a 56‑acre tract in Lafayette County; he believed (based on prior owner Estelle Kiger’s statements) a small portion lay south of County Road 206.
- Mize commissioned surveyor Jim Cannatella, whose survey and resulting property description showed Mize’s title crossing the road; Mize obtained and filed a corrected warranty deed based on that survey and Kiger’s execution.
- Defendants (Westbrook Construction, the Lewises, and Waller) relied on an earlier 2004 survey by Robert Sealy showing their property extended to the centerline of County Road 206 and rejected Mize’s corrected deed.
- Mize filed suit in chancery court to quiet and confirm title; Defendants counterclaimed to quiet title and alleged slander of title against Mize.
- The chancery court accepted Sealy’s survey, found the centerline of County Road 206 to be the boundary, concluded (alternatively) that Defendants had acquired title by adverse possession, and ruled for Defendants on slander of title, awarding damages and attorneys’ fees; the Court of Appeals affirmed in part.
- On certiorari, the Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed whether the elements of slander of title were met and whether damages were properly awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing and recording a corrected deed (based on a survey and grantor’s execution) constitutes malicious false publication for slander of title | Mize: corrected deed was based on an independent, professional survey and Kiger’s executed deed; filing was in good faith | Defendants: corrected deed falsely disparaged their title and was made with malice | Held: Filing a corrected deed alone, made in good faith on survey and grantor execution, does not establish false publication or malice; no slander of title. |
| Whether initiating and prosecuting a quiet‑title suit constitutes slander of title | Mize: suit was a bona fide petition to the court to resolve an honest dispute | Defendants: lawsuit disparaged Defendants’ title and caused special damages | Held: Filing suit is privileged in the due course of judicial proceedings; it does not constitute slander of title. |
| Whether continuation of the suit after grantor’s deposition and removal of a culvert show malice | Mize: continued litigation and removal of culvert were reasonable actions taken in good faith under belief of title | Defendants: continuing suit after Kiger’s deposition and removing culvert manifested malice | Held: Chancellor’s inference of malice from Kiger’s deposition was debatable (deference given), but removal of culvert was not necessarily malicious; overall no proof of false publication, so slander claim fails. |
| Whether damages/attorneys’ fees were properly awarded for slander of title | Mize: acted in good faith; a bona fide plaintiff is not liable for special damages even if unsuccessful | Defendants: they suffered special damages (interest, lost sale) from Mize’s actions | Held: Damages reversed—bona fide claimants are not liable for such damages absent malice and false publication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walley v. Hunt, 54 So. 2d 393 (Miss. 1951) (elements of slander of title require false and malicious publication causing special damage)
- Wise v. Scott, 495 So. 2d 16 (Miss. 1986) (filing a corrected deed does not prove malice if filer had bona fide belief of ownership)
- Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Dev. Corp., 511 So. 2d 112 (Miss. 1987) (communications in judicial proceedings, including lis pendens, are privileged and do not constitute slander of title)
- Butler v. City of Eupora, 725 So. 2d 158 (Miss. 1998) (acts done under reasonable belief of title are not malicious for slander‑of‑title purposes)
- Perrien v. Mapp, 374 So. 2d 794 (Miss. 1979) (a bona fide claimant of ownership will not be liable for special damages in slander of title)