Hegman v. Adcock

377 So.3d 1020

Frank HEGMAN and Hegman Farms Inc., Appellants

v.Clay ADCOCK, Will Phillips, Alfred F. Eaton and Ann W. Ballard, Appellees

NO. 2022-CA-00501-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

01/09/2024

YAZOO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, HON. JANNIE M. LEWIS-BLACKMON, JUDGE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: GEORGE PHILIP SCHRADER IV, Vicksburg

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: WILEY JOHNSON BARBOUR JR., Yazoo City

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., McDONALD AND EMFINGER, JJ.

CARLTON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Frank Hegman and Hegman Farms Inc. (collectively, Hegman), an upper riparian landowner, filed a complaint against lower riparian landowners Alfred F. Eaton and Ann Ballard, their tenant Clay Adcock, and contractor Will Phillips (collectively, Appellees). Hegman claimed that the Appellees’ land-forming operations impeded the natural flow of water off of Hegman’s property, and he sought injunctive relief and damages.

¶2. Adcock filed a counterclaim against Hegman alleging tortious interference with business relations. After a bifurcated hearing, the Yazoo County County Court denied Hegman’s claim for injunctive relief and compensatory damages and found Hegman liable to Adcock for tortious interference with business relations. The county court awarded Adcock compensatory and punitive damages. The county court also found Hegman in contempt of court.

¶3. Hegman appealed from county court to circuit court. After hearing oral arguments, the Yazoo County Circuit Court affirmed in part the county court’s judgment, reversing only the county court’s finding of contempt.

¶4. Hegman now appeals. After our review, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment affirming the county court’s denial of Hegman’s claim for injunctive relief and compensatory damages and the county court’s denial of Hegman’s motion for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 52. However, we find that Adcock failed to prove his counterclaim of tortious interference with business relations by a preponderance of the evidence. We accordingly reverse the circuit court’s judgment affirming the county court’s award of compensatory and punitive damages and render judgment denying Adcock’s counterclaim.

FACTS

¶5. Hegman Farms, Eaton and Ballard, and Frank own three separate but adjoining tracts of real property in Yazoo County, Mississippi. Eaton and Ballard’s property (the Eaton-Ballard Tract) is located in the middle of the properties owned by Frank (the Hegman Tract) and Hegman Farms (the Hegman Farms Tract), with the Hegman Farms Tract located to the west of the Eaton-Ballard Tract and the Hegman Tract located to the east.

¶6. At the time of the action, Frank was a co-owner of a family business that farms both the Hegman Tract and Hegman Farms Tract. Hegman Farms leased the Hegman Tract from Frank for the purposes of planting and harvesting annual agricultural crops. Clay Adcock began leasing the Eaton-Ballard Tract in 2014 for his farming operations.

¶7. Hegman alleges that prior to September 17, 2015, the Hegman Tract was located at a higher elevation than the Eaton-Ballard Tract, and the Eaton-Ballard Tract was at a higher elevation than the Hegman Farms Tract. According to Hegman, the slope of these properties caused rainwater and surface water to flow in a westerly and northwesterly direction from the Hegman Tract, over the Eaton-Ballard Tract, then onto the Hegman Farms Tract, and ultimately into specifically constructed drainage pipes and ditches that allowed the water to reach a drainage ditch west of the Hegman Farms Tract.

¶8. In 2015, Adcock hired Phillips to perform land-forming work (also referred to in the record as "dirt work") on the Eaton-Ballard Tract.¹ This work involved building up the ground elevation on the east side of the Eaton-Ballard Tract along the common boundary line with the Hegman Tract.

¶9. In February 2016, Hegman filed a complaint against the Appellees seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to prevent and correct damage allegedly caused by excessive drainage on the Hegman Tract. Hegman alleged that the land-forming work performed on the Eaton-Ballard Tract substantially altered and increased the elevation of that tract, which then prevented surface water from flowing off of the Hegman Tract. Hegman claimed that because the surface water was obstructed from flowing off of the Hegman Tract, the water began to pool and accumulate, which prevented Hegman from planting and harvesting the annual crops on the affected land. Hegman further asserted that the Appellees intentionally or negligently breached their duty to Hegman not to alter the elevation of the lower lands to a level that would impede the flow of surface water, and, according to Hegman, this breach of duty proximately caused Hegman to suffer damages.

¶10. In the complaint, Hegman specifically requested that the county court grant a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction requiring the Appellees to cease and desist from raising the elevation of the Eaton-Ballard Tract and disrupting the flow of surface water drainage from the Hegman Tract over and through the Eaton-Ballard Tract to the west. Hegman also requested that the court either order the Appellees to return the Eaton-Ballard Tract to its original state of elevation and grade or to otherwise "design, create, install or otherwise construct a drainage system" on the Eaton-Ballard Tract to allow surface water to drain off the Hegman Tract as it had prior to September 17, 2015. Hegman also sought compensatory damages.

¶11. Adcock filed his answer to Hegman’s complaint and asserted a counterclaim against Hegman for tortious interference with business relations. Adcock alleged that before filing the lawsuit, Frank reviewed and discussed with Phillips the plan specifications for the landforming project and dirt work on the Eaton-Ballard Tract. According to Adcock, Hegman ultimately approved the work. Adcock stated that he relied on this approval in proceeding with the project. Adcock asserted that in the spring of 2016, he intended to grow crops on the Eaton/Ballard Tract and sell those products following harvest, but Hegman’s lawsuit precluded him from performing this work. Adcock stated that Hegman’s lawsuit also precluded him from performing additional land-forming work on the Eaton-Ballard Tract, which would have made the land more suitable for farming. Adcock maintained that he suffered damages as a result of Hegman’s interference.

¶12. On November 18, 2016, the county court held a hearing on Hegman’s motion for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction. The parties submitted evidence, and the court heard testimony from Hegman, Adcock, Phillips, and Adcock’s expert, Bill Sheppard, a licensed professional civil engineer whom the county court accepted as an expert on land grading, irrigation, drainage, and water management.

¶13. On December 16, 2016, the county court entered an order denying Hegman’s motion for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction with prejudice after finding that Hegman failed to prove that any negligence or intentional acts or omissions by the Appellees proximately caused Hegman to suffer damages that would entitle him to injunctive relief. The county court declined to consider Hegman’s claims for monetary damages or Adcock’s counterclaim at the hearing, explaining that those claims would remain pending.

¶14. The county court also directed Adcock and Phillips to finish the land-forming work, after which time the court would determine what damages, if any, were caused by the land-forming work, as well any damages to which Adcock may be entitled based on his counterclaim for tortious interference with business relations.

¶15. In April and May of 2017, Adcock filed motions for injunctive relief and for contempt against Hegman, alleging that Hegman intentionally interfered with Adcock’s land-forming work on the Eaton-Ballard Tract.

¶16. On March 1, 2, and 7, 2018, the county court held a hearing on the remaining issues. The county court heard testimony from Hegman’s experts: Kimble Slaton, a licensed professional land surveyor, and Bobby Carpenter, a licensed civil engineer. The county court also heard additional testimony from Hegman, Adcock, Phillips, and Adcock’s expert Bill Sheppard.

¶17. After reviewing the testimony and evidence presented, the county court entered an order on September 30, 2019, finding that Adcock met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all the elements of his claim of tortious interference with business relations.² The county court awarded Adcock $94,176.12 in compensatory damages: $58,917.36 in 2016 on soybeans, $13,073.87 in 2017 on soybeans, and $20,003.93 in 2017 on cotton, as well as $2,180.96 in reduced gin rebates caused by Adcock’s reduced cotton production in 2017. The county court also found that Adcock was entitled to punitive damages based on Hegman’s "willfulness, malice[,] and intent to cause damages to Adcock’s lawful business" and accordingly awarded Adcock $1,000 in punitive damages. As to Adcock’s motions for contempt, the county court found Hegman in contempt of court and fined him $1,000.

¶18. Hegman filed a timely motion for reconsideration, relief from judgment, a new trial, and for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 52, 59, and 60. Hegman also filed a supplemental motion for relief from the judgment, alleging that Sheppard’s billing entries show he manipulated and altered his maps and findings based on advice from Adcock’s counsel. Hegman specifically asserted that Adcock’s counsel advised Sheppard to take out the verbiage on the maps referencing "adversely affected areas." Adcock responded and explained that his counsel advised Sheppard to change the wording due to concern that Hegman would attempt to portray such verbiage as an admission of fault by Adcock and Phillips. Adcock argued that...