Eaton v. Haney

383 So.3d 620

Cheryl EATON, Appellant

v.James Dexter HANEY and Kathryn Mari Haney, Appellees

NO. 2022-CA-00656-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

04/02/2024

DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, HON. VICKI B. DANIELS, JUDGE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LESLIE B. SHUMAKE JR., Olive Branch

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: BARRY W. BRIDGFORTH JR., Southaven

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., McDONALD AND SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Cheryl Eaton appeals from the DeSoto County Chancery Court’s order (1) requiring specific performance of a contract she had with Kathryn and James Dexter Haney for the sale of real property and (2) awarding damages and attorney’s fees in favor of the Haneys. Eaton challenges the court’s finding that an enforceable written contract existed between the parties for the sale of Eaton’s property. She also takes issue with the evidentiary basis for the award of damages and the legal basis for the award of attorney’s fees. Finding no error, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On May 1, 2017, Eaton and the Haneys entered into a written agreement for the purchase of Eaton’s property on Wallace Lane in the town of Walls, Mississippi. The terms of the signed writing specifically included that the agreement was for "a land purchase with dwellings on it" and that the agreement was for a "FIXED TERM" of "50 months" with payments for the purchase "to begin on the 5 day of May, 2017 and end on the 5 day of July 2021." Despite the completion of these payments and an additional amount, Eaton conveyed the Wallace Lane property to her niece Amber Longo by a quitclaim deed on October 11, 2021. Longo then filed an eviction action against the Haneys in the DeSoto County Justice Court on November 5, 2021.

¶3. On November 17, 2021, the Haneys filed a complaint to enforce the contract and for other relief in the DeSoto County Chancery Court. The Haneys alleged that Eaton breached their contract and that Longo tortiously interfered with the contract. The Haneys sought specific performance of the contract, an award of monetary damages, and an order setting aside Eaton’s quitclaim deed to Longo. The justice court transferred the eviction action between Longo and the Haneys to the chancery court on December 3, 2021. Eaton filed her answer to the complaint on December 20, 2021, denying all allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.

¶4. On January 7, 2022, the Haneys filed a motion for a default judgment against Longo. Then on January 12, 2022, the chancery court entered a default judgment against Longo as to liability, set aside the quitclaim deed from Eaton to Longo, and reserved ruling on the matter of damages. The Haneys filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against Eaton on April 5, 2022, and the following day, Eaton responded by filing a motion for a temporary restraining order against the Haneys. On April 13, 2022, the chancery court granted the Haneys a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Eaton.

¶5. A trial on the Haneys’ complaint was held on June 8, 2022, and the chancery court entered a judgment on the next day. The court found in favor of the Haneys and ordered Eaton to execute a warranty deed conveying title to Dexter and Kathryn. The chancery court awarded the Haneys $36,911.59 in damages against Eaton and Longo, jointly and severally. Eaton appealed from the court’s judgment on June 29, 2022.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

¶6. Eaton originally purchased the property on Wallace Lane through an owner-financed deed of trust in June 2009 for $75,000.00. At that time, her monthly payments were $731.89 for a term of one-hundred forty-three months, with the final payment being due in June 2021. In 2017, Eaton and the Haneys came to an oral agreement for the Haneys to pay Eaton $732.00 a month for fifty months in exchange for ownership of the Wallace Lane property. Eaton determined the payment amount and fixed monthly term, which represented a nearly mirror image of the remainder of her mortgage on the property.¹

¶7. On April 22, 2017, Kathryn made a Facebook post that read in part, "I want to take a minute and say a huge thank you to Sherry Eaton …. Dexter and 1 will begin the next chapter of our life together in a home that will be ours in just four years. Sherry, I cannot even begin to tell you how grateful I am that you asked us for this amazing opportunity …. That house looks amazing after the cleaning crew came in…." Eaton responded to the post with a comment that said, "I love you, honey, and I’m praying for you and Dexter to have a wonderful, blessed life together."

¶8. Kathryn found an online contract titled "Residential Tenancies Rental Agreement" that was used to formalize the agreement, and it was specifically edited to demonstrate the parties’ intent to buy and sell the property according to the terms orally agreed to by Eaton and the Haneys. The Agreement provided certain statements, such as: "This is a land purchase with dwellings on it. The land is 2 acres with one mobile home and one shop"; and "Being sold as is. Any repairs are to be done by tenants." (Emphasis added). The Agreement was dated May 1, 2017, and contained a signature for each of the three parties. Dexter testified that he gave Kathryn authority to sign his name because he was not available. Kathryn testified that Eaton came by her place of employment and signed the agreement in her presence. The Haneys moved into a house on the property on May 5, 2017, and the fifty-month term of the agreement was set to end on July 5, 2021.

¶9. Thereafter, Kathryn and Dexter made multiple improvements to the property at their own expense. The renovations included repairing the kitchen floor, repairing the hallway, installing new flooring, repairing the underpinning, installing a new garage door, installing a new water heater, purchasing new appliances, cutting down trees (and generally cleaning up the property), renting a propane tank, building a chicken coop, and installing a new roof.

¶10. Eaton testified that she paid off her original mortgage early, in either May or June 2019. She testified that shortly there- after, sometime in the summer of 2019, she decided she wanted to move back to the Wallace Lane property. Eaton did not make the Haneys aware of her decision at that time, though, and she waited until October 2021 to inform them.

¶11. In July 2021, Kathryn contacted Eaton to discuss conveying the property to them, since they had completed their obligations and payments as required in fulfillment of the Agreement. Eaton instead told Kathryn that she wanted more money—for back pay of the taxes and insurance she had paid—and to "recoup money from her bad financial decision." Eaton initially told Kathryn she wanted $25,000.00, but after negotiations, the parties reached a verbal agreement for an additional $15,000.00. The Haneys agreed to pay a new monthly total of $612.00 per month, beginning in July 2021.² They paid the new amount until October 2021. During this period, Kathryn and Dexter also paid Eaton’s $100.00 insurance deductible in order to have the roof replaced in August 2021.

¶12. In September 2021, Eaton called Anita Rainey, a long-time friend and neighbor across the street from Wallace Lane. Rainey testified that Eaton told her, "My name is mud – it’s going to be mud. Yes I’m a liar," and "I’d changed my mind. I’m actually going to be moving in. I’d had the place appraised." Eaton then informed Rainey that Wallace Lane had appraised for $92,000.00.

¶13. Subsequently, on October 11, 2021, Eaton prepared a quitclaim deed conveying the Wallace Lane property to Amber Longo, her niece, unbeknownst to the Haneys. Two days later, Eaton texted Dexter and told him, "I have decide[d] to move back[,] it is worth 3 [times] the amount I am asking for it from you guys[;] I will pay you back the money you have spent." Then, on October 15, 2021, Eaton filed the quitclaim deed conveying title to Longo.

¶14. On October 22, 2021, Kathryn texted Eaton:

Are you saying you aren’t going to follow through with our agreement to buy the property? We have paid close to $40k which was paying the land off for you. Then you told us in July that you wanted $15,000 more than we agreed to do that at $500 a month. I’m not understanding why you aren’t following through with your commitment like we have over the years.

Kathryn followed up with the following message:

Certainly you aren’t trying to say you want us to leave the land we purchased from you? … After we paid off the land and you failed to follow through with signing it over like originally discussed. We weren’t renting the place we were buying it. That’s what you told us and signed into from the very beginning.

Eaton responded with a message that read in part:

I was not in the right frame of mind. Who would pay 8.5 years on a property and then just let it go. I purchased the property and financed so it would be paid off by the time I was 60…. I should never have left in the first place…. this is the first time I have not been good for my word/handshake. I have to look out for me, no one else ever has nor ever will. It has nothing to do with friendship. This is a business decision.

¶15. On November 13, 2021, as a result of the eviction action Longo filed against them, Dexter and Kathryn signed a new rental agreement and moved into a home in Hernando, Mississippi, where their monthly payment was $1,500. Although the Haneys did not officially relinquish possession of the Wallace Lane property, Longo moved in for a time after they vacated it due to the eviction proceedings. She moved back out shortly after, and the property remained vacant during the pendency of this lawsuit.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1, 2] ¶16. This Court employs "a limited standard of review in appeals from … chancery court[s]." Bond v. Bond, 271 So. 3d 548, 550 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Corp. Mgmt. Inc. v. Greene County, 23 So.3d 454, 459 (¶11) (Miss. 2009)). We "will not disturb a chancery court’s factual findings ‘when...