Tommie L. Huey v. Lemorris Strong
206 So. 3d 547
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Acey Huey received Lot 24 via probate and deeded it to his daughter Fillisa on Feb. 25, 2009; a court order evidencing her title was recorded.
- A 2009 "Repairing and Renting Agreement" signed by Acey, Tom, and Tommie (as "tenant") promised $150/month rent and tenant-funded repairs; Fillisa did not know of this agreement until years later.
- Fillisa sent eviction and rent-demand notices in June 2012; Fillisa conveyed the property to LeMorris Strong by deed dated July 25, 2012, filed Aug. 14, 2012.
- On July 27, 2012, Tommie filed a document titled "Notice of Subordination, Attornment and Non‑Disturbance Agreement," attaching the 2009 rental agreement and recorded it in the lis pendens records.
- Strong sought cancellation of the lis pendens, filed an eviction action (dismissed after Tommie vacated), and later filed to remove cloud and quiet title; the chancery court granted relief, dismissed Tommie’s wrongful‑eviction counterclaim, and awarded attorney’s fees under the Litigation Accountability Act (LAA).
Issues
| Issue | Tommie’s Argument | Strong’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tommie’s counterclaim for wrongful eviction had merit | Tommie relied on the 2009 written agreement creating tenant rights and sought damages for wrongful eviction | The agreement was void as to the record owner (Fillisa) and Strong; Tommie never paid rent and thus had no enforceable tenant rights | Court affirmed dismissal: counterclaim frivolous/without merit; Tommie effectively a trespasser or licensee, not a tenant with enforceable rights |
| Whether the recorded lis pendens/cloud on title was justified | The recorded notice (attaching the rental agreement) put third parties on notice of Tommie’s claimed interest | The filing was inoperative as to current owners and disparaged title; it was interposed to harass/extort and should be removed | Court ordered cancellation of the lis pendens and removal of the cloud on title |
| Whether attorney’s fees under the LAA were appropriate | Tommie defended the lis pendens and counterclaims, asserting her claimed interest | Strong argued Tommie’s claims/defenses were without substantial justification and intended to harass/delay | Court awarded attorney’s fees and costs under the LAA, finding Tommie’s defenses/claims without substantial justification |
| Whether chancery court’s factual findings were reversible on appeal | Tommie contended the chancellor erred in credibility and fact findings | Strong relied on trial evidence and chancellor’s credibility determinations | Appellate court applied manifest‑error standard and affirmed the chancery court’s factual findings and legal conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Mize v. Westbrook Const. Co. of Oxford, LLC, 146 So. 3d 344 (2014) (standard of appellate review — chancery courts reversed only for manifest error)
- Hooker v. Greer, 81 So. 3d 103 (2012) (filing a lis pendens alone is not an LAA action, but defending a lis pendens without substantial justification can trigger LAA sanctions)
- Lehman v. Mississippi Transp. Comm’n, 127 So. 3d 277 (2013) (wrongful lis pendens/slander of title can support attorney’s fees and damages)
- Phelps v. Clinkscales, 247 So. 2d 819 (1971) (filing an inoperative instrument disparaging title can give rise to damages)
- Welford v. Dickerson, 524 So. 2d 331 (1988) (attorney’s fees and costs are recoverable as an element of damages for slander of title)