Kelvin Travis v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC
229 So. 3d 183
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Donald Travis received Parcel A in 2002; DIMA Homes built a house believed to be on Parcel A and Donald executed a deed of trust for financing.
- The house was later discovered to straddle Parcel A and adjoining Parcels B and C (owned by Donald’s mother).
- Nationstar foreclosed in 2011; Federal National Mortgage Association acquired the property and later conveyed it to GMAC Mortgage LLC, which discovered the house was not fully on Parcel A.
- Kelvin and Carolyn Travis acquired title to Parcels B and C from their mother, moved into the house in 2012, and occupied it rent-free for ~3 years; Kelvin admitted knowing GMAC claimed Parcel A.
- GMAC sued the Travises in chancery court asserting equitable estoppel, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and ejectment; the chancellor ordered a swap (Travises receive ~1.12 acres; GMAC receives the 2-acre tract with the house), imposed a constructive trust, and ordered ejectment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the chancellor did not abuse her discretion in applying equitable estoppel and unjust enrichment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (GMAC) | Defendant's Argument (Travises) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor properly applied equitable estoppel to bar Travises' claim to the house | GMAC: Travises passively allowed construction and later claimed portions of the land; they should be estopped from asserting title | Travises: (raised for first time on appeal) GMAC had duty to survey; unequal bargaining during construction | Court: Affirmed estoppel — Travises passively acquiesced and are estopped from claiming the land |
| Whether Travises were unjustly enriched by occupying house without paying value | GMAC: Occupation with notice of GMAC’s claim and without payment constitutes unjust enrichment | Travises: (no trial affirmative defense cited) claimed equitable grounds on appeal | Court: Held occupation without payment and with notice was unjust enrichment; constructive trust appropriate |
| Whether chancellor’s remedy (land exchange, constructive trust, ejectment) abused discretion | GMAC: Proposed remedial exchange is equitable and prevents injustice | Travises: Contended chancellor manifestly wrong (also argued survey duty) | Court: No abuse of discretion; equity permits flexible remedies — exchange and constructive trust affirmed |
| Whether issues raised first on appeal (survey duty, bargaining power) are preserved | GMAC: N/A | Travises: Argued now that GMAC/predecessors had duty to survey and DIMA had unequal bargaining power | Court: Issues waived for failure to raise at trial and lack of briefing; rejected on merits as unpreserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Elchos v. Haas, 178 So. 3d 1183 (Miss. 2015) (equitable estoppel prevents one who passively allows another to expend money under an erroneous title assumption from later asserting legal rights)
- Ground Control LLC v. Capsco Indus. Inc., 120 So. 3d 365 (Miss. 2013) (definition and application of unjust enrichment)
- McNeil v. Hester, 753 So. 2d 1057 (Miss. 2000) (equitable remedies—constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment)
- Scafidi v. Hille, 180 So. 3d 634 (Miss. 2015) (broad remedial powers of chancery court and equitable flexibility)
- Conley v. Wright, 193 So. 3d 663 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (issues not raised at trial are procedurally barred on appeal)