Wright v. Henley
158 So. 3d 1166
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Terry and Christine Henley owned three adjacent duplexes in Jackson, MS (444/446, 450/452, 454/456 Myer Ave.).
- Separate loans were taken for each duplex, but the same (erroneous) legal description covering all three was attached to each deed of trust by closing attorney Dale Schwindaman.
- The deed of trust on 450/452 was assigned and foreclosed; the substitute trustee’s deed likewise contained the incorrect description conveying all three duplexes to purchasers Rico and Alanna Wright.
- The Wrights purchased the foreclosed property after an MLS listing and signage that referenced only 450/452, paid for one unit, inspected only 450/452, but later accepted rents from all three duplexes believing they owned all three.
- The Henleys sued in chancery court to reform the deed, set aside the foreclosure conveyance as to the two neighboring duplexes, obtain rents, injunctive relief, and damages; the chancery court reformed the deed to convey only 450/452 to the Wrights and awarded the Henleys rents/minus credits for taxes/insurance paid by the Wrights.
Issues
| Issue | Henley (Plaintiff) Argument | Wright (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reformation of deed for erroneous legal description | Deed should be reformed to reflect parties’ true intent (Henleys retained title to the two duplexes) | Wrights were bona fide purchasers for value without notice; deed should be construed in their favor | Court affirmed reformation: Wrights were not BFPs; equities support reformation to reflect intent |
| Notice / bona fide purchaser status | N/A (focused on reformation and notice) | Wrights argued they paid value in good faith and lacked notice of adverse claims | Court found Wrights had notice triggers (tax discrepancy, available records) and failed to investigate; not BFPs |
| Damages / rents diverted to Wrights | Henleys sought rents collected from all three duplexes since foreclosure | Wrights argued award would unjustly enrich Henleys and judgment was too vague | Court awarded rents at $1,000/month since transfer, reduced by $7,041.98 for taxes/insurance paid by Wrights; denied unjust enrichment claim |
| Vagueness/enforceability of damages award | N/A | Wrights: judgment too vague to enforce (no specific sum) | Court held award computable ($1,000/month minus credited amount); not unacceptably vague |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n., 717 So.2d 300 (Miss. 1998) (defines bona fide purchaser: good faith, valuable consideration, without notice)
- Giesbrecht v. Smith, 397 So.2d 73 (Miss. 1981) (notice principles and BFP definition authority)
- Smalley v. Rogers, 100 So.2d 118 (Miss. 1958) (equity can reform deeds to reflect parties’ real intention; purchaser’s duty to investigate recitals)
- McAllister v. Richardson, 60 So. 570 (Miss. 1913) (equity’s power to reform deeds to conform to true intention)
- Buckley v. Garner, 935 So.2d 1030 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (what constitutes valuable consideration)
- Dew v. Langford, 666 So.2d 789 (Miss. 1995) (doctrine of unjust enrichment explained)
- Hans v. Hans, 482 So.2d 1117 (Miss. 1986) (unjust enrichment principles)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 989 So.2d 930 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (standard of review for chancery findings)
- In re Estate of Holt, 806 So.2d 296 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (appellate review standard for chancery decisions)
- Williams v. King, 860 So.2d 847 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (appellate deference to chancellor unless clearly erroneous)