262 So. 3d 569
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2007 Latham agreed with Johnson, Robinson, and Trahan to acquire 170 acres of former catfish ponds in Sunflower County for duck-hunting and profit; the four men allegedly formed an oral partnership to buy, improve, and later sell the land.
- Latham applied for and obtained financing and took title individually; plaintiffs claim they each paid one-quarter of loan installments (2008–2009) and expected partnership ownership and equal share of profits.
- In 2010 Latham sold the property for a substantial profit, paid the mortgage, and kept the net proceeds (~$223,963), depositing them into his business account rather than the partnership account.
- Plaintiffs sued in Sunflower County (filed March 14, 2011) asserting breach of partnership, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, and seeking accounting, dissolution, and damages.
- A jury awarded plaintiffs $176,352.24; the trial court denied prejudgment interest but awarded postjudgment interest. On appeal Latham raised venue, statutes of limitation and frauds, evidentiary rulings, JNOV/new trial; plaintiffs cross-appealed prejudgment interest denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue | Venue proper in Sunflower because partnership formation, acts, and injury occurred there | Venue should be in Rankin where Latham resides; property no longer vested in parties | Venue in Sunflower proper; no abuse of discretion (venue statute §11-11-3 applies) |
| Statutes of limitation | Claims timely—accrual occurred when sale proceeds were received (Mar 16, 2010); complaint filed Mar 14, 2011 | Claims time-barred under 1- or 3-year statutes | Claims timely; statute begins to run on accrual (when damages occurred) |
| Statute of Frauds | Oral partnership to buy/sell land barred as contract for sale of land | Partnership agreement is not a land-sale contract within statute of frauds | Statute of frauds does not bar oral partnership claim under Partnership Act; dismissal denied |
| Accounting prerequisite | An accounting was required before suit; absence deprives court of jurisdiction | Statutory authority allows partner to sue without prior accounting (§79-13-405) | No accounting required pre-suit; claim may proceed |
| Evidentiary rulings (discovery, deposition, parole evidence) | Various procedural and evidentiary errors prejudiced Latham | Trial court within discretion; impeachment and explanations admissible | No abuse of discretion in allowing witnesses, deposition for impeachment, or Robinson’s explanation of emails |
| Mistrial (jury confusion) | Jury was confused by verdict form and court communications; mistrial warranted | Jury clarified and arrived at consistent verdict | Denial of mistrial upheld; final verdict consistent with jury’s initial math |
| JNOV / sufficiency / in pari delicto | Insufficient evidence of partnership liability; plaintiffs guilty of wrongdoing (in pari delicto) | Evidence supported partnership and payments; in pari delicto waived and unsupported | JNOV denied; in pari delicto waived and not proven |
| Prejudgment interest (cross-appeal) | Damages were liquidated (set by partnership share) → prejudgment interest appropriate | Trial court acted within discretion given disputes; denied interest | Appellate court reverses trial court: damages held liquidated and prejudgment interest must be determined on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Hedgepeth v. Johnson, 975 So.2d 235 (Miss. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for venue rulings)
- Fletcher v. Lyles, 999 So.2d 1271 (Miss. 2009) (statute of limitations accrual principles)
- Delta Health Group, Inc. v. Estate of Pope ex rel. Payne, 995 So.2d 123 (Miss. 2008) (de novo review of motions to dismiss)
- Munford, Inc. v. Fleming, 597 So.2d 1282 (Miss. 1992) (standard for directed verdict/JNOV review)
- McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774 (Miss. 1993) (timing for sufficiency challenges)
- Moeller v. Am. Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 812 So.2d 953 (Miss. 2002) (definition and treatment of liquidated vs. unliquidated damages for prejudgment interest)
- Upchurch Plumbing, Inc. v. Greenwood Utils. Comm’n, 964 So.2d 1100 (Miss. 2007) (prejudgment interest discretionary; liquidated claim and bad-faith denial exceptions)
- Stockstill v. Gammill, 943 So.2d 35 (Miss. 2006) (prejudgment interest principles)
- Figueroa v. Orleans, 42 So.3d 49 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (use of depositions for impeachment permitted)