Perry A. Elchos v. Kevin J. Haas
2015 Miss. LEXIS 504
| Miss. | 2015Background
- In 2004 Perry and Lori Elchos purchased a 1.11-acre parcel ("lot 2") from Kevin and Lisa Haas out of a 50+ acre tract; the sale was contingent on a survey and the parties received a survey and deed describing the parcel.
- The Elchoses built a house oriented toward the river; part of the completed structure was later discovered to encroach onto the adjacent lot ("lot 1") still owned by the Haases.
- The Haases did not learn of the encroachment until December 2007 (an April 2008 resurvey confirmed it); the chancellor found the Elchoses knew or should have known they were partially off their deeded lot.
- The chancellor entered a mandatory injunction ordering the Elchoses to remove/move the house onto lot 2, awarded the Haases nominal damages ($1) and attorney’s fees ($15,928.75), and dismissed all Elchoses’ counterclaims with prejudice.
- On appeal the Elchoses argued mutual mistake (seeking deed reformation), and asserted defenses of estoppel and laches; they also appealed dismissal of counterclaims (negligent/intentional misrepresentation, breach) and opposed the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Haases) | Defendant's Argument (Elchos) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reformation for mutual mistake | N/A (Haases opposed reformation) | Both parties were mutually mistaken as to which parcel was conveyed; deed should be reformed to reflect parties’ intent | Affirmed chancellor: no mutual mistake; deed, survey and contract correctly described lot 2 and reformation denied |
| Equitable defenses (estoppel / laches) | Haases: acted promptly when informed; no knowledge or passivity that would bar their claim | Elchos: Haases knew or had means to know of construction and passively permitted improvements → estoppel/laches bar relief | Affirmed: no evidence Haases knew of encroachment before Dec. 2007; estoppel and laches do not apply |
| Counterclaims: negligent/intentional misrepresentation; breach of contract | N/A | Elchos: Haas misrepresented lot location and promised utilities/paving; seek damages | Affirmed dismissal: no reasonable reliance, no writing for alleged contract terms, and no clear/convincing proof of fraud |
| Attorneys’ fees award | Haases sought fees based on Elchos’ gross negligence and covenant violations | Elchos argued award improper because based on covenants they were given | Affirmed: chancellor’s finding of gross negligence supported fee award; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. McCoy, 611 So.2d 957 (Miss. 1992) (standard: chancellor’s factual findings will not be disturbed absent manifest error)
- David M. Cox, Inc. v. Pitts, 29 So.3d 795 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate deference to chancellor; application of estoppel principles in property encroachment context)
- Bright v. Michel, 137 So.2d 155 (Miss. 1962) (equitable estoppel where owner had knowledge and passively permitted encroaching improvements)
- Turner v. Morris, 17 So.2d 205 (Miss. 1944) (general rule favoring injunction to remove trespass; discussion of notice and estoppel)
- Webb v. Brown, 404 So.2d 1029 (Miss. 1981) (reformation: focus on the property the parties intended to convey rather than mere wording)
- Holland v. Peoples Bank & Trust, 3 So.3d 94 (Miss. 2008) (elements for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation)
- Shattles v. Field, Brackett & Pitts, Inc., 261 So.2d 795 (Miss. 1972) (injunction to remove trespassing structure is ordinary remedy unless estoppel or laches clearly apply)