355 So.3d 233
Miss. Ct. App.2022Background
- William T. White worked in his parents’ manufactured-homes business and bought the sales center in 2002 based on parents’ promise to provide a $500,000 inventory line of credit.
- After financing problems in 2005, White obtained loans and, at his parents’ insistence, deeded five properties to them (2008–2009); White alleges those deeds were intended as collateral and that he would be reconveyed the properties once repaid.
- White Haul (William’s corporation) sued Coastal Bridge for breach; that suit settled in May 2010 for net recovery of about $536,700. Under a disbursement agreement, Patsy received most of the recovery but allegedly refused to reconvey the properties or pay White his share.
- White filed suit (seeking damages, constructive trust, and to set aside deeds). The chancery court transferred the case to circuit court; the circuit court dismissed White’s damages claims as time-barred and dismissed his constructive-trust/land claims for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of damages (three-year statute of limitations) but reversed dismissal of the constructive-trust and land-recovery claims, holding those claims survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge and are subject to ten-year statutes of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (White) | Defendant's Argument (Patsy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether damages claims are time‑barred | White contends continuing refusal to pay/reconvey tolls limitations or discovery rule saves claims | Patsy argues claims accrued in 2010 and are barred by the three‑year catch‑all statute, § 15‑1‑49 | Held: Damages claims accrued in 2010 and are barred by § 15‑1‑49; continuing ill effects do not create a continuing tort or toll |
| Whether complaint states a constructive‑trust claim | White alleges deeds were collateral, Patsy promised reconveyance, she was repaid and never intended to return property; alleges fraud, undue influence, abuse of confidence | Patsy argues complaint lacks the clear and convincing proof and fails to plead fraud/undue influence adequately | Held: Complaint’s well‑pled allegations suffice at 12(b)(6); constructive trust is a viable claim (requires clear and convincing proof at trial) |
| Whether claim to set aside deeds / recover land is time‑barred | White asserts claims to recover land and set aside deeds accrued no earlier than 2010 and are within ten‑year limitations | Patsy contends related claims are time‑barred or otherwise barred | Held: Action to recover land and to seek constructive trust governed by ten‑year statutes (§§ 15‑1‑7, 15‑1‑9); White’s 2018 suit was timely |
| Effect of chancery-to-circuit transfer / venue | White argued the matter belonged in chancery (equitable relief) and sought transfer back | Patsy (and circuit court) treated case as breach/damages actionable in circuit court; transfer was sua sponte by chancery | Held: Transfer was erroneous but once transferred the circuit court properly proceeded; appellate court remanded to the transferee circuit court (declined to exercise constitutional authority to remand to chancery because parties did not brief the issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. Hester, 753 So. 2d 1057 (Miss. 2000) (defines constructive trust and requires clear and convincing proof)
- Joel v. Joel, 43 So. 3d 424 (Miss. 2010) (lists wrongful conduct that can support constructive trust)
- White v. White, 325 So. 3d 666 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (prior appeal holding constructive‑trust claim can survive statute‑of‑limitations challenge)
- Lott v. Saulters, 133 So. 3d 794 (Miss. 2014) (distinguishes damages claims from equitable land‑recovery claims and confirms ten‑year rule for land actions)
- Weathers v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 14 So. 3d 688 (Miss. 2009) (statute‑of‑limitations accrual principles)
- Pierce v. Cook, 992 So. 2d 612 (Miss. 2008) (continuing‑tort doctrine and limits on extending accrual)