Bridge Props. of Lafayette, LLC v. 1000 Jefferson, LLC

366 So.3d 930

BRIDGE PROPERTIES OF LAFAYETTE, LLC and Bridge Properties of Mississippi, LLC, Appellants v. 1000 JEFFERSON, LLC and Corey A. Alger, Appellees

NO. 2022-CA-00631-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

June 20, 2023

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: SHELDON G. ALSTON, ROBERT LANE BOBO, Jackson

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: WALTER ALAN DAVIS, Oxford

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND SMITH, JJ.

CARLTON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Bridge Properties of Lafayette LLC and Bridge Properties of Mississippi LLC (collectively "Bridge Properties") filed a complaint against 1000 Jefferson LLC and Corey A. Alger (collectively "1000 Jefferson") alleging claims of trespass and a prescriptive easement and seeking injunctive relief. At trial, 1000 Jefferson moved to dismiss Bridge Properties’ complaint pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and the Lafayette County Chancery Court granted the motion. Bridge Properties filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the chancellor denied.

¶2. Bridge Properties now appeals from the chancellor's order dismissing its complaint and the order denying its motion to alter or amend the judgment. On appeal, Bridge Properties asserts the following assignments of error: (1) the chancellor erred in finding that Bridge Properties did not have standing to pursue its trespass claim, (2) the chancellor erred in granting the Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss, and (3) the chancellor erred by failing to find 1000 Jefferson in contempt.

¶3. Finding no error, we affirm the chancellor's orders dismissing Bridge Properties’ complaint and denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment.

FACTS

¶4. In 2007, Bridge Properties acquired title to 1002 Jefferson Avenue and 915 Jefferson Avenue in Oxford, Mississippi. The record shows that the property at 1002 Jefferson was leased to a commercial tenant, BankFirst Mortgage, who maintained possession of the property at all times relevant to this action.

¶5. In 2018, Corey Alger acquired the property located at 1000 Jefferson Avenue, Oxford, Mississippi. The record reflects that 1000 Jefferson is the neighboring property directly to the west of 1002 Jefferson. Alger later conveyed his property to 1000 Jefferson LLC, and in 2021, 1000 Jefferson commenced construction of multi-level residential condominiums.

¶6. Alger claimed that prior to the start of construction at 1000 Jefferson, he had a conversation about the impending construction work with Tonquin Stovall, a representative of Bridge Properties’ tenant, BankFirst Mortgage. According to Alger, Stovall gave general permission for 1000 Jefferson to have reasonable access to the property at 1002 Jefferson for the purpose of performing construction work at 1000 Jefferson. ¹ Alger also testified that at no time did Stovall or anyone else on behalf of BankFirst Mortgage ever withdraw that permission.

¶7. After Bridge Properties discovered that Stovall gave permission for 1000 Jefferson to have access to 1002 Jefferson during construction, Bridge Properties hand-delivered a letter to Stovall in February 2021 stating that BankFirst Mortgage had breached its lease agreement by permitting "construction activity" on the property. In the letter, Bridge Properties also demanded that BankFirst Mortgage withdraw the permission given to 1000 Jefferson for construction activity. Bridge Properties threatened to cancel BankFirst Mortgage's lease if it did not comply. The letter further stated that Bridge Properties "reserved the right to take possession" of the property back from BankFirst Mortgage. The record reflects that Bridge Properties never took possession of the property back from BankFirst Mortgage.

¶8. In March 2021, construction workers at 1000 Jefferson damaged a buried sewer line that serviced 1002 Jefferson Avenue. As a result of this damage, Bridge Properties obtained a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against 1000 Jefferson. The injunction and restraining order prevented further construction activity along the property line. At a subsequent hearing, the parties reached an agreement for 1000 Jefferson to perform work that would address the issues raised in the injunction and temporary restraining order. Per the agreement, 1000 Jefferson received a "limited right" to enter the property at 1002 Jefferson in order to backfill the voids on the property. 1000 Jefferson agreed to notify Bridge Properties’ civil engineer at least twenty-four hours in advance of any work to be performed along the boundary of the properties. The parties’ agreement resolved Bridge Properties’ claims for injunctive relief, and the agreement was ultimately adopted as an order of the chancery court on March 26, 2021.

¶9. On March 16, 2021, Bridge Properties filed a complaint against 1000 Jefferson for prescriptive easement, trespass, and injunctive relief arising out of 1000 Jefferson's trespass at 1002 Jefferson. (The issues before us on appeal pertain only to the trespass action and the later contempt action, and we will limit our discussion to these issues.) In the complaint, Bridge Properties alleged that during the excavation and construction of the condominiums at 1000 Jefferson Avenue, 1000 Jefferson crossed the boundary line between the two properties and damaged the property at 1002 Jefferson. 1000 Jefferson filed an answer and counter-claim denying it was liable for trespass.

¶10. On May 5, 2021, Bridge Properties petitioned the chancery court for an order holding 1000 Jefferson in civil contempt or, alternatively, constructive-criminal contempt for its failure to comply with the March 26, 2021 agreed order. In its motion, Bridge Properties claimed that 1000 Jefferson failed to notify Bridge Properties’ civil engineer twenty-four hours prior to entering the property at 1002 Jefferson Avenue and that 1000 Jefferson failed to enter the property solely for the purpose of backfilling the voids on the property.

¶11. A trial was held in December 2021. At the close of Bridge Properties’ case-in-chief, 1000 Jefferson made an ore tenus motion to dismiss Bridge Properties’ complaint under Rule 4l(b). 1000 Jefferson argued that Bridge Properties was an out-of-possession owner and therefore had no standing to assert a trespass claim. The chancellor took the matter under advisement.

¶12. On February 7, 2022, the chancellor entered a final judgment granting 1000 Jefferson's motion and dismissing Bridge Properties’ complaint. In the order, the chancellor found that Bridge Properties did not have standing to pursue its trespass claim because, based on its lease agreement with BankFirst Mortgage, Bridge Properties was a "lessor out of possession." The chancellor further held that even if Bridge Properties were a lessor in possession, its trespassing claim failed because the evidence showed that BankFirst Mortgage gave permission to 1000 Jefferson to be on the property at 1002 Jefferson Avenue, and BankFirst Mortgage never revoked that permission.

¶13. In the order, the chancellor also denied Bridge Properties’ motion for contempt. The chancellor explained that 1000 Jefferson entered the property at 1002 Jefferson in furtherance of the March 26, 2021 agreed order and that 1000 Jefferson's actions in entering the property were not willful, deliberate, or contumacious conduct such that sanctions would be warranted. The chancellor also held that because Bridge Properties lacked standing to bring the trespass action, the chancellor lacked subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the trespassing claims in the March 26, 2021 agreed order.

¶14. Bridge Properties filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), arguing that the chancellor's ruling made a "substantial factual error"—namely, that 1000 Jefferson damaged real property not covered by Bridge Properties’ lease agreement with BankFirst Mortgage, and that BankFirst Mortgage did not have authority to provide the permission that Bridge Properties relied on as a defense to their trespass. Bridge Properties also argued that 1000 Jefferson blatantly and repeatedly violated the terms of the March 26, 2021 agreed order and therefore should be held in contempt. In support of its motion, Bridge Properties attached an affidavit from Tonquin Stovall.

¶15. 1000 Jefferson filed an opposing motion and asserted that Bridge Properties failed to meet the standard required for obtaining relief pursuant to Rule 59(e).

1000 Jefferson explained that Bridge Properties did not argue that there has been an intervening change in controlling law or that there is a need to correct "a clear error of law" to prevent manifest injustice or otherwise. 1000 Jefferson asserted that although Bridge Properties attempted to present new evidence in the form of Stovall's affidavit, Bridge Properties did not argue that Stovall's affidavit constitutes new evidence that was not previously available.

¶16. 1000 Jefferson further argued that at no time prior to or during the trial did Bridge Properties claim that BankFirst Mortgage's lease agreement only applied to the actual building and not the rest of the premises of 1002 Jefferson. 1000 Jefferson asserted that the facts and the course of conduct by Bridge Properties confirmed that it considered the entire property at 1002 Jefferson to be subject to the lease agreement with BankFirst Mortgage.

¶17. The chancellor entered an order denying Bridge Properties’ motion to alter or amend the judgment after finding that Bridge Properties failed to show any intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or the need to correct any clear error that could warrant reconsideration under Rule 59(e). See Brooks v. Roberts , 882 So. 2d 229, 233 (¶15) (Miss. 2004). The chancellor also addressed the arguments set forth in Bridge Properties’ motion. The chancellor found no merit to the claim regarding standing, explaining that "Bridge Properties now take[s] the position that [its] lease with BankFirst [Mortgag...