I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 1 0 0 7 - CO A

S KL I NVE S TM EN TS , I NC. AP P EL LA NT v . N A T A L IE T . H A R D IN A N D L E S L IE B. TORR EN CE APP ELLEE S D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 29/ 2013 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. GL E NN AL DE RS ON CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LAF AYETT E COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: DAV I D M ARK SL OCUM J R. A T T O RN E Y F O R A P P E L L E E S : G E O R G E S T O U T O N H A Y M A N S IV NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : GR AN TED D I SM I SS AL W I TH PREJ UD I CE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 18/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E I R V I N G , P . J. , F A I R A N D JA M E S, JJ. I RVI NG , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1. SK L I nves tm ent s I nc. ( SK L ) , a compan y that buys pr operty att ax s al es , pur chas ed pr operty ow ned by N at al i e H ar di n and L es l i e T orr ence a ta t ax s al e. SK L m ade s ubs t ant i al i m provem ents t o the ho use si tuated on the p roperty b efor e the tax sal e w as voided b ecause of a def ecti n the not i ce pr ocedur e. SK L l at erf i l ed a compl ai nta gai ns tN at al i e and Les l i e, i n the Laf

ayett e C ounty C hance ry C ou rt , cl ai m i ng unj us tenr i chmentand s eeki ng re im b u rse m e n t fo r th e im p ro v e m e n ts m a d e to th e h o u se . D u rin g trial, a fte r S K L re ste d its cas e, N at al i e and Les l i e made an or e t enus m ot i on f ordi s m i s s al of

SK L ’ s cl ai m . T he

### Th e sisters inh erited th e pro pertyfrom th eir father, an d theywere raisedin th e ho use 1 

### situatedonthe p rop erty. 2 c h a n c e ry c o u rtg ra n te d th e m o tio n , a n d S K L a p p e a ls . ¶ 2 . F in d in g n o e rr o r, w e a ff irm . FACTS ¶ 3. S iste rs, N a talie an d L e slie , in h e rited a p a rc e l of im p ro v e d lan d in O x fo rd , L a fa y e tte C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi . O n A ugu st2 7, 2 007, af t erN at al i e and Les l i e f

ai l ed t o pay the 2006 1 t a xe s a s s e s s e d t o the p r op e rty, the p r op e rty w a s s ol d by the t a x c ol l e c t orf orthe C i ty of Ox f o r d t o S KL a ta t a x s a l e . Ab o u ta y e a rl a t e r , o n o ra b o u tAu g u s t2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , a f t e rs o me di s cus s i on w i th N at al i e and Les l i e, L el on D avi ds on, N at al i e and Les l i e’ s f orm ernei ghbor a n d c lo se fa m ily fr ien d , p u rc h a se d th e p ro p e rty b y p a y in g th e 2 0 0 7 a n d 2 0 0 8 tax e s o w e d to th e C ity o f O x fo rd a n d to L a fa y e tte C o u n ty . ¶ 4 . S KL r e c e i v e d th e t a x d e e d t o th e p r o p e rty f r o m th e c i ty c l e rk o n M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 . On M a y 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 , S K L iss u e d a c h e c k to th e c h a n c e ry c ler k a s p a y m e n t fo r d e lin q u e n t co u n ty tax e s o n th e p ro p e rty . T h a t ch e c k w a s n e v e r d e p o site d b y th e c h a n c e ry c ler k , an d th e re is n o e v i d e n c e th a tth e p a y me n twa s e v e rd e d u c t e d f r o m S KL ’ s a c c o u n t . I n J u n e 2 0 1 0 , S KL b e g a n m a k in g im p ro v e m e n ts to the h o u se , an d a c c o rd in g to S K L , S K L m a d e a p p ro x im a tely $114, 000 i n i m pr ovement s . W hi l e i m pr ovement s w er e bei ng m ade, L el on i nf orm ed Sus an Pr i s ock, the ow nerof

SK L , thathe had pur chas ed the pr operty, and thathe bel i eved he ow ned i t . O n Sept ember2, 2010, the cha ncery cl erk i s s ued a tax d eed t o L el on, and that d e e d w a s re c o rd e d in th e o ff ic e o f t h e c h a n c e ry c le rk .

### 3

¶ 5 . D e sp ite h a v in g p u rc h a se d th e p ro p e rty tw o y e a rs p rio r, S K L d id n o t file a p e tit io n to qui etand conf

i rm t i t l e unt i l Sept ember7, 2010. T hatpet i t i on named N at al i e and L es l i e as def endant s . SK L l at erf

i l ed a s econd pet i t i on n am i ng N at al i e, L es l i e, and Lel on as d e fe n d a n ts. T h e c h a n c e ry c o u rt c o n so lid a ted th e tw o ca se s, an d the c a se p ro c e e d e d to trial. Be f o r e tr i a l , th e p a rt i e s s t i p u l a t e d th a tb o th S KL ’ s a n d L e l o n ’ s t a x d e e d s we r e v o i d , a n d S KL pr ocee ded agai ns tN at al i e and L es l i e s ol el y on a cl ai m of unj us te nr i chme nt, seeki ng re im b u rs e m e n t f

o r t h e im p ro v e m e n ts m a d e to th e h o u s e . ¶ 6. D ur i ng tr i al , A s hl ey A tki ns on, a deputy cl erk w i th the O xfor d ci ty cl erk’ s of f i ce, t es t i f i ed thati n F ebruary 2010, she i nf orm ed M el ani e Pri s ock, an em pl oyee w i th SK L , that ther e may have bee n i s s ues w i th SK L ’ s ow ner s hi p i nt er es ti n the pr operty. A s hl ey s t at ed that s h e i n f o rme d M e l a n i e th a ti f

s o me o n e p u r c h a s e d th e p r o p e rty a tt h e c o u n ty t a x s a l e , S KL w oul d have onl y a l i en on the pr operty. A s hl ey al s o t es t i f i ed thats he i nf

orm ed M el ani e that the ade quacy of

t he st atut ory not i ces re qui r ed f ort ax sa l es ar e comm on i s s ues w i th t ax s al es a n d th a t S K L s h o u ld s e e k th e a d v ic e o f a n a tto rn e y . ¶7. Susa n t es t i f

i ed thatpr i ort o m aki ng i m pr ovement s t o the hous e, s he as ked Lel on i f he c o u ld co n tac t N a talie an d L e slie to in q u ire a s to w h e th e r e ith e r N a talie o r L e slie d e sire d to pur chas e the pr operty f

r om SK L . Susa n s t at ed that , unabl e t o l ocat e a pot ent i al buyer , s he d e c id e d to m a k e im p ro v e m e n ts to th e h o u se s o th a t sh e c o u ld g e t a r e tu rn o n h e r in v e stm e n t. Susa n admi tt ed thats he di d nots peak w i th N at al i e orL es l i e bef or e SK L began maki ng im p ro v e m e n ts to th e h o u se b e c a u se a lth o u g h L e lo n a ttem p te d to “ p u t [h e r] i n to u c h ” w ith N a ta lie a n d L e s lie , th e s is te rs n e v e r r e tu rn e d h e r c a lls .

### Befo re the co mp la int inthe in stant case w as filed, S KLhadbeena defen dant in 2 

### Americ an General

Financ e , a ca sein whi ch theChancery Court of Prentis s County f

ound that Americ an GeneralFinanceInc . (AGF), a l ienholder, had not rec eived proper s tatutory no tice of a taxsale in wh ich SKL purchasedprop erty ownedby Gen ise Ro land . Id. at 1248 (¶ 1). In that

c as e, thi s Cour

t f ound that be ca

useAGF had not

re ce ive d proper notic e, thetax sale was v oid . Id. at 12 50 (¶6). 4 ¶ 8 . Upo n b e i n g q u e s t i o n e d b y th e c h a n c e ry c o u rtr e g a r d i n g a n o th e rc a s e i n v o l v i n g SKL, SK L I nves tm ent

s I nc. v. A m er i can G eneralF i nan ce I nc . , 22 So. 3d 1247 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) , Susa n s t at ed thatba s ed on w hathappene d i n thatcas e, s he w as aw ar e thata t ax dee d

2 coul d be s etas i de as voi d. W hen aske d w hy s he cont i nued t o m ake i m pr ovement s t o the hous e know i ng thatSK L ’ s t ax deed coul d pos s i bl y be s eta s i de ata l at erdat e, Susa n s t at ed th a t sh e b e lie v e d S K L h a d a se n io r le g a l in ter e st in th e p ro p e rty a n d th a t sh e w a n ted to p ro te c t h e r i n v e s tm e n t. ¶9. N at al i e t es t i f

i ed that s he never r ece i ved any i nf orm at i on f

r om SK L r egar di ng the t ax s al e , SK L’ s de s i r e t o s e l l the pr op e rty t o h e r , orthe i mpr ov e ment s made t o the ho us e. N at al i e al s o t es t i f

i ed thatt o herknow l edge, L es l i e, w ho di d nott es t i f y, had notr ece i ved any s uch i nf orm at i on ei ther . I n hi s t es t i m ony, L el on s t at ed thathe s poke w i th Susa n i n 2010, and th a t h e in fo rm e dS u s a n th a t S K L d id n o t o w n th e p ro p e rt y . ¶10. T hr oughout the pr es ent at i on of SK L ’ s cas e, the chanc ery court ques t i oned w i tnes s es a n d p o se d q u e stio n s to th e p a rties ’ a tto rn e y s. A fte r S K L re ste d its c a se , N a talie a n d L e slie m oved or e t enus f

ordi s m i s s al of SK L ’ s unj us t - enr i chmentcl ai m , ar gui ng: (1) thatSK L had f ai l ed t o m eeti t s bur den of provi ng unj us tenr i chment ; (2) thatSK L had unr eas onabl y m ade i m pr ovement s t o the hous e i n bad f ai th w hi l e know i ng thatSK L di d nothave aval i d l egal

### 5

in terest i n th e p rop erty; and (3) th at th e im p rov em en ts h ad no t b ee n au tho ri ze d by N a talie o r L e slie o r b y law . S K L res p o n d e d , a rg u in g : (1 ) th a t th e im p ro v e m e n ts h a d b e e n m a d e in g o o d fa ith ; (2 ) th a t S K L h a d c o lo ra b le titl e to th e p ro p e rty w h e n it m a d e th e im p ro v e m e n ts to th e h o u se ; an d (3 ) th a t i t w o u ld b e u n ju st to allo w N a talie an d L e slie to re a p th e b e n e fits of the i m pr ovement s m ade t o the hous e w i thoutr ei m bur s i ng SK L f orthe val ue of

the im p ro v e m e n ts . ¶11. B y or derf

i l ed J une 6, 2013, the cha ncery courtfound thatS K L had notm eti t s bur den o f p r o v i n g u n

j u s te n r i c h me n ta n d d i s mi s s e d S KL ’ s c l a i m w i th p r e j u d i c e . On a p p e a l , S KL ar gues thatthe cha ncery courterr ed by gr ant i ng N at al i e and L es l i e’ s “mot i on f ora di r ect ed v e rd ic t,” a n d th a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rta b u s e d its d is c re tio n b y q u e s tio n in g w itn e s s e s . DI S CU S S I ON I . Mot i on f

orD is m is s al ¶12. “[ T ] he appr opr i at e mot i on i n a cas e tr i ed w i thouta j ury i s nota m ot i on for[ a] di r ect ed v e rd ict, b u t in v o lu n tar y d ism iss a l, p u rsu a n t to R u le 4 1 (b ) o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e. ” G ul

f por t- B i l oxiR eg’ lA i r

por tA uth. v. Montclai rTrav el A gency I

nc . , 937 So. 2d 1000, 1004 ( ¶13) (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006). “W hen r evi ew i ng a di s m i s s al under. . . R ul e .

. . 4 1 (b), w e w il l no t ov erturn the d ec isi o n o f [ the c h an ce ry c o u rt ] if [i ts] fi n d ing s are s upport ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence unl es s [ the cha ncery court ] abused [ i t s ] di s cr et i on, w as m ani f es t l y w r ong, orappl i ed an err oneous l egal s t andar d. ” Jones v. Jones , 101 So. 3d 731, 7 3 2 (¶ 4 ) ( M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 2 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). ¶ 1 3 . “ ‘U n

ju s t e n ri c h m e n t’ is a ‘ m o d e rn d e s ig n a tio n fo r th e d o c tr in e o f q u a s i- c o n tr a c ts .’

### 6

T he bas i s f

ora n a ct i on f

or‘ unj us te nr i chment ’ l i es i n a pr om i s e, w hi ch i s i m pl i ed i n l aw , that o n e w ill p a y to th e p e rs o n e n title d th e re to [th a t] w h ic h in e q u ity a n d g o o d c o n s c ie n c e is h is .” B radl ey v . Kel l

y Bros . C ontr actors I

nc . , 11 7 So . 3d33 1, 33 8 ( ¶2 8) ( M i s s . Ct . A pp . 20 13) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . St at ed di f f er ent l y, “[ u] nj us tenr i chmentonl y appl i es t o s i tuat i ons w her e: [ ( 1) ] ther e i s no l egal contr actand [ ( 2) ] ‘ the per s on s oughtt o be cha r ged i s i n pos s es s i on of m o n e y o r p ro p e rty w h ich in g o o d c o n sc ie n c e a n d ju s tice h e sh o u ld n o t re tain b u t sh o u ld del i vert o another . ’ ” Langham v. B ehnen , 39 So. 3d 970, 976 ( ¶14) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2010) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶14. I n L a n g h a m , the plai nti ff w as a m achine ope r at orand w el derf r om G eor gi a w ho r el ocat ed t o M i s s i s s i ppi t o as s i s ti n cl eanup e f f ort s af t erH urr i cane K atr i na deva s t at ed the M is s is s ip p i G u lf

C o a s t. Id . at972 ( ¶2) . T he pl ai nt i f f recei ved s ever al compl ai nt s f r om nei ghborhood r es i dent s r egar di ng tr ees a nd de br i s on the def endant ’ s pr operty thatneede d to b e c le a re d . Id . a t9 72 - 73 ( ¶4 ) . The p l a i nt i f f a gr e e d t o pe r f

orm the work a f

t e rbei ng i nform ed by a thir d party that the defend ant had agreed to pay the plai nti ff forhis services . Id . H o w ev er, after th e w o rk h ad be en co m p let ed , the d efe n d an t r efu sed to p ay the p lai n ti ff, w h o e v e n tu a lly fi le d s u it a g a in s t th e d e fe n d a n t, c la im in g u n ju s t e n ri c h m e n t. Id . at973 ( ¶¶5- 6 ). O n a p p ea l, this C o u rtfo u n d tha t th e p lai n ti ff w as n o t entit led to rec o v er u n d er a theo ry o f un just en ri ch m en t bec au se “ there w as n o l eg al co n tr ac t, oral or w ri tt en [, an d ] [t ] h e re co rd [ di d] noti ndi cat e that[ the thi r d party had] act ed as an age ntf or[ the def

end ant , ] actual or appar ent . ” Id . a t 9 7 6 (¶ 1 5 ). ¶15. L i kew i s e, i n thi s c as e, the evi dence r evea l s thatther e i s no contr actbetw een SK L and

### 7

N atali e a n d L esli e. N o r i s the re a n y ev iden ce that an y o n e, acting o n N atali e a n d L esli e’s b eh alf, au tho ri ze d S K L to m ak e the im p rov em en ts. A ft er re v iew , w e find that the c h an ce ry cou rt ’s dis m i ssal of SK L ’s cl ai m w as suppo rt ed b y sub st anti al evi den ce and w as not an abu se o f d is c re tio n . T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. II . T he C ou rt ’s Q uest i on i ngof W i tnesses ¶16. SK L a r gues thatthe chanc ery c ourt“ cont i nual l y mi s char act er i zed t es t i m on y [ and] in ter ru p ted an d v e ra c io u sly ‘cr o ss e d ’ [S K L ’s] w itn e ss e s w h ile p ro tec tin g o th e r w itn e ss e s in a mannerthathi nder ed [ SK L ’ s ] devel opm entof i t s c as e[ . ] ” W hi l e the r ecor d r evea l s thatthe chanc ery c ourti nt err ogat ed w i tnes s es a nd e ven s om et i m es i nt errupt ed w i tnes s es as they t es t i f i ed, a cont extual r eadi ng of the r ecor d al s o r evea l s thatthe cha ncery courtdi d not

“ o v e rs te p [ ] its ju d ic ia l a u th o ri ty ” a s S K L n o w c la im s . ¶17. T he cha ncery courtw as w i thi n i t s ri ghtt o “i nt err ogat e w i tnes s es , w hethercal l ed by i t s el f orby a party. ” P ow el lv. A yars , 7 9 2 S o . 2 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 8 (¶2 9 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ); see als o M . R . E . 6 1 4 (b). C ertainly, i t w o u ld h av e b ee n “‘g rou n d s for rev ersa l i f th e [ch an ce ry c o u rt had] abus e[ d] the author i ty t o cal l orque s t i on a w i tnes s [ , ] abandoni ng [ i t s ] i m part i al pos i t i on as a j udge and a s s um i ng an adve r s ar i al r ol e. ’ ” C opeland v. C opeland , 904 So. 2d 1066, 1074 ( ¶27) ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng P o w e ll, 792 So. 2d at248 (¶29 )) . H ow ever , “ther e [ w as ] no r equi r ementf

orthe [ chanc ery court ] sol el y t o be a s i l entobs erver . ” C opeland , 904 So. 2d at 10 7 4 (¶2 8 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). A ft er re v iew ing the rec o rd, w e find that the c h an ce ry c o u rt d id n o t a b u se its d isc re tio n in its e x a m in a tio n o f th e w itn e ss e s. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e a ff

irm .

### 8

¶ 1 8 . T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E L A F A Y E T T E C O U N T Y C H A N C E R Y C O U R T IS AF F I RM ED . AL L CO S T S OF T HI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S E D T O T HE APP ELLANT. LE E, C. J . , BA RNES , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AMES , J J . , CO NC UR . GR I F F I S , P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .