Locklear v. Sellers
126 So. 3d 978
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Tim and Johnny Sellers owned 120 acres; neighbor Donald Locklear built a gravel road across ~1,200 feet (≈84,000 sq ft disturbed) of the Sellers' Forrest County property without permission.
- The Sellers served requests for admission under Miss. R. Civ. P. 36; Locklear (pro se at the time) did not respond and many requests were deemed admitted, including that he trespassed, acted intentionally/maliciously, caused property damage, and that the Sellers were entitled to restoration, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.
- At the damages hearing, Sellers testified he repeatedly refused a right-of-way and personally told Locklear to stop construction; Locklear claimed he had oral permission.
- An excavation/road-building expert estimated restoration (remove roadbed, replace topsoil/vegetation) would cost nearly $64,000.
- The chancery court awarded ≈$64,000 compensatory (restoration), $126,000 punitive, and $25,000 attorney’s fees; Locklear appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sellers) | Defendant's Argument (Locklear) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Measure of compensatory damages | Award restoration cost to return land to original condition | Road increased property value; restoration is improper if restoration > diminution in value | Court affirmed restoration cost; Rule 36 admissions entitled Sellers to restoration and Locklear produced no before/after value proof |
| Punitive damages | Trespass was intentional, malicious, and grossly negligent — punitive damages warranted | Trespass was not intentional; punitive damages improper | Punitive damages affirmed; Locklear’s admissions foreclosed contradicting testimony and credibility is for the chancellor |
| Attorney’s fees | Fees recoverable because facts supported punitive damages for willful/wanton wrong | Fees not recoverable absent statute | Attorney’s fees affirmed as permissible where punitive damages are warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Irving v. Irving, 67 So.3d 776 (Miss. 2011) (standard of review for questions of law and fact)
- Carambat v. Carambat, 72 So.3d 505 (Miss. 2011) (deference to chancellor’s factual findings)
- Joel v. Joel, 43 So.3d 424 (Miss. 2010) (appellate review when substantial evidence supports findings)
- Ferrara v. Walters, 919 So.2d 876 (Miss. 2005) (assumption that chancellor resolved issues for prevailing party when specific findings are not required)
- Young v. Smith, 67 So.3d 732 (Miss. 2011) (Rule 36 admissions are conclusive and cannot be rebutted by contrary testimony)
- Harrison v. McMillan, 828 So.2d 756 (Miss. 2002) (general rule on measuring property damage: restoration vs. diminution in value)
- Bynum v. Mandrel Indus., Inc., 241 So.2d 629 (Miss. 1970) (discussing proof for cost of restoration)
- Bell v. First Columbus Nat’l Bank, 493 So.2d 964 (Miss. 1986) (plaintiff may prove either reasonable cost of repairs or diminution in value)
- R & S Dev., Inc. v. Wilson, 534 So.2d 1008 (Miss. 1988) (punitive damages available for willful/grossly negligent trespass)
- City of Laurel v. Bush, 120 So.2d 149 (Miss. 1960) (attorney’s fees may be awarded where facts show gross or willful wrong justifying punitive damages)