325 So.3d 666
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background
- William T. White held title to ~22.5 acres secured by a deed of trust and note; he fell behind on payments and Patsy B. White (his mother) began making the payments to avoid foreclosure.
- Patsy alleges William orally promised to convey the subject property to her in exchange for her paying the indebtedness; she completed payments in November 2013 but title remained in William’s name.
- Patsy filed suit in July 2014 seeking quiet title, specific performance, damages, a constructive trust, and a lien; she later filed a second amended complaint asserting breach of contract and equitable remedies.
- William moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the statute of frauds and statute of limitations barred the contract claim; the chancery court granted dismissal and denied injunctive relief, constructive trust, and lien.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the oral agreement is barred by the statute of frauds, the breach claim was time-barred under the three-year limitations period, and Patsy failed to plead facts sufficient to obtain mandatory injunction, constructive trust, or a lien.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of frauds bars enforcement of oral promise to convey land | Patsy: she paid the debt in reliance; conveyance was promised and should be enforced | William: conveyance of land must be in writing under statute of frauds | Held: Statute of frauds bars the oral contract; no written agreement existed |
| Whether claim is barred by statute of limitations | Patsy: she did not discover the breach until March 2014; limitations should start then | William: alleged breach occurred by latest transfer dates in 2008–2009; suit filed in 2014 is untimely | Held: Claim time-barred; Patsy should have discovered title defect earlier under reasonable diligence |
| Whether mandatory injunctive relief (specific performance) should be ordered | Patsy: court should compel deed to her because she performed by paying the debt | William: no enforceable contract exists to compel | Held: Denied — no enforceable contract pleaded and Rule 65 requirements not met |
| Whether a constructive trust or lien may be imposed to prevent unjust enrichment | Patsy: equitable remedies are required because she paid and would be unjustly deprived | William: Plaintiffs failed to plead elements (confidential relationship, fraud/abuse of confidence, unjust enrichment) | Held: Denied — complaint failed to plead requisite elements; payments deemed voluntary and consideration existed; no debt to support lien |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Evans, 547 So. 2d 54 (Miss. 1989) (statute of frauds requires writing for land conveyance)
- Scaggs v. GPCH-GP, Inc., 931 So. 2d 1274 (Miss. 2006) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standard and de novo review)
- McNeil v. Hester, 753 So. 2d 1057 (Miss. 2000) (constructive trust elements and need for clear and convincing proof)
- Griffin v. Armana, 687 So. 2d 1188 (Miss. 1996) (constructive trust doctrine to prevent unjust enrichment)
- Omnibank of Mantee v. United Southern Bank, 607 So. 2d 76 (Miss. 1992) (voluntary payments generally not recoverable)
- Barriffe v. Estate of Nelson, 153 So. 3d 613 (Miss. 2014) (constructive trust does not arise merely from contract nonperformance)
- In re Estate of Horrigan, 757 So. 2d 165 (Miss. 1999) (equitable relief and constructive trust where plaintiffs relied and suffered loss)