I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 0 9 0 5 - S CT W . W . W ARREN
v. RO BERT

DERI VA UX
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 02/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. DE NI S E OW E NS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: RO Y H . LI DD ELL CLI NT D . VA ND ERV ER BEV ERLY D. POO LE AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : S T E P HE N J . CA RMODY J ONAT HAN R
. W E RN E NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY DI S P OS I T I ON: ON DI RE CT AP P E AL : AF F I RMED . ON CR OS S
- AP P E AL : RE VE RS E D AND R E N D E R E D - 12/ 04/ 2008 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 SM I T H , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h is c a s e a ri s e s fr o m a d is p u te b e tw e e n a d jo in in g c o m m e rc ia l la n d o w n e rs , W . W . W arr en and Rober tD er i vaux, and conc erns the r i ght s cr eat ed by a docum entent i t l ed “R eci pr ocal E as ement , ” exe cut ed i n 1986 by W arr en and the pr edec ess or ow nert o t he D er i vaux pr operty, R onal d C
. Sm i th. T he pi vot al ques t i on i s w hetherthe R eci pr ocal E as ementes t abl i s hes a perpetual eas em entf orparki ng and s i gnage i n addi t i on t o t he
ea sem en t f

o r i n g ress a n d eg ress. S e c o n d , this C o u rtm u st de term ine w h ethe r W arren ’s

### 2

co n d u ct w arran ted c o m p en sato ry d am ag es fo r l o st pro fi ts, pu n it ive d am ag es, and an aw ard of at t orneys’ f

ees. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 2
. W a rre n a n d D e riv a u x o w n a d jo in in g c o m m e rc ial p ro p e rty in J a c k s o n , M is s iss ip p i,
nearthe s outhw es tcornerof I nt er s t at e 55 and N or ths i de D r i ve. W arr en’ s pr operty i s t o t he i m m edi at e north of

D er i vaux’ s pr operty. ¶3. I n 1986, the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof T r ans por t at i on updat ed the f r ont age r oad that runs al on g the eastpropert y li ne o f bot h p art i es. B ecause W arr en’s pr op erty lostal l access t o the f r ont age r oad f

r om hi s pr operty, W arr en negot i at ed f ora n a cce s s e as ementacr os s the pr operty of

Ronal d C
. Sm i th, pr edec es s orow nerof R obertD er i vaux’ s pr operty. I n r etur n, S m ith so u g h t rig h ts a s to p a rk in g a n d sig n a g e . O n A p ril 2 2 , 1 9 8 6 , W a rre n a n d S m ith
exec ut ed a doc um entent i t l ed “R eci pr ocal E as ement , ” dr af t ed by W arr en’ s at t orney and f i l ed
w ith th e H in d s C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C ler k
. T h e R e c ip ro c a l E a se m e n t state s, in p a rt, th a t S m ith and W arr en “do he r eby s el l , convey a nd ves ti n eac h other , thei rs ucce s s or s i n t i t l e, perpetual
e a se m e n t rig h ts, to w it: ( 1) T he per i od, dur at i on ort erm of thi s e as ements hal l be perpetual , and/ or unt i l et erni ty. (2) P arcel #2 - Easem ent. T his descri pti on sh all b e used for only i ng res s a n d e g re ss p u rp o s e s , a n d fo r n o o th e r re a so n s. S a id d e sc rip tio n in Par cel #2 - E as ements hal l neverbe bl ocked t o i m pairi t ’ s [ s i c] con t i nu ou s use f

or i ng res s- egress by al l part i es l aw ful l y up on the lands, Par cel #1 - Fee, and W
. W . W arr en proper ty l yi ng t o the N or th, as s how n by t he pl atatt ache d. Sai d Par cel #2 - E as ements hal l be kept “cl ear” atal l t i m es.

### At the tim e of the ere ction of the s ign, Benni gan’ s Re st aurant was thete nant

on 1 

### War re n’s prope rt

y. War re n re ques te d that De ri vaux obt ain approvalof the s ign f rom Benni gan’ s 2 

### manage me nt. The m ana ger of Be nnigan’s approved the s ign and it s l ocati on.

3 ( 3) A s t o pr operty pr es ent l y orhereaft erow ned by W
. W . W arr en, l yi ng N or th a nd a dj ace nta s t o Par cel #1
- Fee orRon C
. Sm i th, i ti s agreed thatpart i es w i th bus i nes s i nt er es tm ay cr os s - park i n f ours pace s ow ned by W
. W . W arr en l ocat ed South o f B enni gan’ s ; f ur therm or e, that part i es w i th bus i nes s i nt er es tm ay cr os s - park i n f ours pace s ow ned by R on C
. Sm i th, a partof Par cel #1- Fee. (4 ) B u sin e ss S ig n . W . W . W a rre n v e sts in R o n C . S m ith th e leg a l rig h t to er ect , m ai nt ai n, and r emove upon the pr operty of W . W . W arr en w hi ch l i es 1. 5 f eetf r om s ai d R on C
. Sm i th, N or t h P roper ty l i ne, and 35 f eet W e s tw a rd fr o m th e S o u th e a s t C o rn e r o f th e W . W . W a rr e n p ro p e rt y , a b u s in e s s s ig n a s m u tu a lly a g re e d u p o n .” ¶ 4
. P u rsu a n t to th e se ter m s, S m ith e re c ted a b u sin e ss sig n w ith in 1 .5 f e e t o f h is n o rth pr operty l i ne and 33 f

eetf r om the s outheas tcornerof W arr en’ s pr operty. T he s i gn w as appr oved by B enni ga n’ s mana ge ment , pe rW a rr e n’ s i ns truc t i on s , a nds t ood unt i l 1988, w hen 1 D er i vaux pur chase d Sm i th’ s pr operty i n f or ecl os ur e. H avi ng been i nf or m ed of

t he R e c ip ro c a l E a se m e n t, D e riv a u x re m o v e d S m ith ’s s ig n a n d e re c ted a n e w sig n fo r h is i ns ur ance bus i nes s . W arr en and D er i vaux di s cus s ed t he new si gn w i th W arr en appr ovi ng. 2 D er i vaux’ s s i gn w as l ocat ed i n appr oxi m at el y the s ame l ocat i on as Sm i th’ s s i gn. ¶5. Fr om 1988 unt i l A pr i l 2002, D er i vaux, hi s empl oyees , and hi s cus t om er s us ed f our parki ng s pace s l ocat ed on t he W arr en pr operty. I n 1998, W arr en i nf or m ed D er i vaux thatt he
s i gn coul d notr emai n i n i t s l ocat i on unl es s D er i vaux pai d re nt . N o furtheract i on w as t aken by ei therparty unt i l A pr i l 2002, w hen W arr en demanded mont hl y p a ymen tf orpa rki ng. U pon

### 4

thi s demand, D er i vaux made one paym enti n t he am ountof $250, butceas ed payment s af t er
cons ul t i ng hi s att orney. D er i vaux cont i nued t o us e the f our par ki ng s pace s . O n M ay 31, 2005, W arr en di s connec t ed t he pow ert o D er i vaux’ s si gn. D er i vaux gave W arr en a c opy of the Ease m entand demanded thatW arr en cea s e t amper i ng w i th the s i gn. O n J une 4, 2005, W arr en, hi s s on, and a w el derr emoved D er i vaux’ s s i gn by the us e of a bl ow t or ch and damaged the s i gn i n the pr oces s . W arr en al s o pl ace d concr et e parki ng bum pers i n t he parki ng l ot , r es tr i ct i ng D er i vaux’ s acc es s t o the s pace s near es tthe pr operty l i ne. ¶6. O n J une 28, 2005, D er i vaux f i l ed s ui tagai ns tW arr en i n the C ounty C our tof H i nds C o u n ty, F ir st Jud ici al D istri ct, see k ing co m p en sato ry a n d p u n it ive d am ag es, alon g w ith i nj unct i ve r el i ef

. T he co unty courti s s ued a t empora ry r es tr ai ni ng or deron J une 29, 2005,
o rde ri n g W arren to rem o v e the p ark ing b u m p ers. I n resp o n se, W arren rearranged the b arr iers and i ns t al l ed a w ooden f ence nearthe pr operty l i ne. T he f ence w as actual l y l ocat ed, as W arr en’ s ow n expertconf i r m ed, on D er i vaux’ s pr operty. ¶7 . T h e c o u n ty c o u rt h e ld th a t th e R ec ipro ca l E ase m en t g ran ted D e riv a u x a n d h is
s ucce s s or s the r i ghtt o us e f ourpa r ki ng s paces f

orbus i nes s purpos es w i thoutr es tr i ct i on as
w el l as the r i gh tt o e r e c ta nd mai nt a i n a s i gn w i thi n the de s i gn a t e d a r e a . The c ou r tf ur t her fou n d that W arren ’s ac ti o n s w ere m ali ciou s an d /or g ross ly n eg li g en t, w arran ti n g a n aw ard
o f p u n iti v e d a m a g e s. T h e c o u n ty c o u rt a w a rd e d p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a n d a tto rn e y s’ f e e s, in addi t i on t o compensa t ory damages f orthe cos tof

a new s i gn and f

orl oss of p rof

i t s . T he county courtal s o gr ant ed D er i vaux andhi s s uc c e s s or s a perm anenti nj unct i on pr event i ng any in ter fe re n c e w ith th e ir rig h ts u n d e r th e R e c ip ro c a l E a se m e n t.

### 5

¶8. W arren ap pealed the rul i ng t o the C han cery C ou rt of H i nd s C ou nty. T he ch an ce ry
courtaf f i r m ed the county court ’ s rul i ng as t o the ea s ementand damages forl os tprof i t s , but
r ever s ed the aw ar d of

puni t i ve damages and att orneys ’ f ees . T he chanc ery c our tf ound t hat the R eci pr ocal E asem ent , w hi ch i ncl uded r i ght s as t o acc es s , parki ng, and s i gnage, w as “a val i d and enf

or cea bl e ea s ementthatruns w i th the l and. ” I n r ever s i ng puni t i ve damages , t he chanc ery courtf

ound thatW arr en’ s conductal one, w hi l e evi denci ng hi s anger , w as not
s uf f i ci entt o w arr antpuni t i ve damag es, consi der i ng the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s . T he chanc ery courtr ever s ed the aw ar d of att orneys ’ f

ees , f i ndi ng “i f a t t orneys ’ f

ees ar e not author i zed by the contr actorby s t atut e, they ar e nott o be aw ar ded w hen an aw ar d of p u n itiv e d a m a g e s is n o t p ro p e r.” ¶9. W arr en now appea l s t o thi s C our t , ar gui ng thatthe cha ncery courterr ed i n f i ndi ng that D e riv a u x h a s a v a lid a n d e n fo rc e a b le e a se m e n t fo r p a rk in g a n d sig n a g e . W a rre n a lso a p p e a ls the aw ard of dam ages for l ostprofi t s. D eri vau x cross- app eal s, argui ng that the ch an ce ry
cou rterr ed in r eversi ng the co un ty co urt ’s aw ard of pun i t i ve d am ages an d att orneys’ f ees. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶10. T he j udgm ent of a county court i n a nonj ury tr i al i s ent i t l ed t o the s ame def er ence on
a p p e a l a s a c h a n c e ry -c o u rt d e c re e , a s to its fi n d in g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f l a w . P atel v. T eler ent L eas ing Cor

p. , 574 So. 2d 3, 6 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t i ng R i ves v. P eters on , 493 So. 2d 3 1 6 , 3 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). W h en rev iew in g th e fin d ing s o f fact of a ch an ce ll o r, this C o u rt
a p p lie s th e “ m a n if

e s t e rr o r/ s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e ru le .” Mis s . Sta te Tax Co mm ’n v . Os c a rE. A u stin T rust , 719 So. 2d 1172, 1173 ( M i s s . 1998)
. T hi s Courti s pr ohi bi t ed f r om di s turbi ng

### 6

th e fin d in g s o f th e c h a n c e llo r u n les s th e y a re “ m a n ife stly w ro n g o r c lea rly e rro n e o u s .” B ow ers W

indow & D oorCo. v. D earm an , 5 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 1 2 -1 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ). T h is C our t , how ever , r evi ew s i s s ues of l aw undera de novo st andar d, and w i l l r ever s e i f the l aw has been appl i ed ori nt erpr et ed err oneous l y. Mis s . T r ansp. Com m ’n v. Fir es , 693 So. 2d 9 1 7 , 9 2 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). A N A L Y S IS I . D i rec t A ppeal A . W het her t he part i es cre at ed a perpet ual eas em ent f or parki ng and s i gnage. ¶11. T he f

i r s tis sue rai sed b y W ar r en i s w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n f i ndi ng that the R eci pr ocal Eas ementc r eat ed a pe rpetual eas ementas t o parki ng and s i gnage. W arr en ar gues that th e p art i es i ntended t o creat e, and the d ocu m ent cr eat ed, a si ng l e easem ent f or i ng res s and egr es s and mer e pr i vi l eges as t o the parki ng and s i gnage. ¶12. I n or dert o det erm i ne w hatthe part i es i nt ended, thi s C our tm us tf i r s texami ne the la n g u a g e c o n ta in e d in th e ‘f o u r c o rn e rs ’ o f t h e in s tru m e n t. Purs ue Ener gy Cor p. v. Perkins , 558 So. 2d 349, 351 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t i ng P f is ter erv. N

oble & Cities Ser v. O il

Co. , 320 So. 2d 383, 3 84 ( M i s s . 1 97 5) )
. I n r e vi e w i ng the d oc umen t , the c ou r ts ho ul d c on s true t he l anguage i n a manner“w hi ch makes s ens e t o an i nt el l i gentl ayman f ami l i aronl y w i t h t he bas i cs of E ngl i s h l anguage . ” P u rs u e, 558 So. 2d at352 ( ci t i ng T hornhil l v. Sys . F uel

, I nc. , 5 2 3 S o . 2 d 9 8 3 , 1 0 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 )). ¶13. I n l ooki ng at the R eci pr ocal E as ement on i t s f ace , i t m us t be not ed that the document itse lf is e n tit led “ R e c ip ro c a l E as em ent ” ( emphasi s added)
. T he nam e of t he docum ental one

### Paragraph 5 of theRec iproca l Ea se me nt s tate s “ Prope rty as d escribed by pl at 3 

### atta che d dat ed April14, 1986, Alde rm an Enginee ring Company, s hal l l ike wis e bethe bene fi ci ar

y of a llri ghts and privi le ges her ein cr eate d.”This useof “pri vil ege ” m er ely st at es that the righ ts under

thedocum ent

wil l pa ss to t

he owne rs ’ be nef

ic iari es . Thi s us e of “priv ilege,” th erefore, furthers D erivaux’s arg ument, no t Warren ’s. 7 w oul d s ugges ta qui d pr o quo – one ea s ementbei ng excha nged f oranother
. O n i t s f

ace , t he documentdoes notm ent i on t he w or ds “l i cens e” or“pr i vi l ege. ” T he R eci pr ocal E as ement 3 stat es th at S m ith a n d W arren “ d o h ere b y sell , co n v ey , an d v est i n ea ch o ther, th eir suc ce sso rs i n t i t l e, perpetual eas ementri ght s . . . . ” A s emi
- col on f ol l ow s thi s s t at ement , f

ol l ow ed by
o n e p ara g rap h for e ac h o f th e ac ce ss ea sem en t, th e cro ss-p ark ing , an d the b u sine ss sign
. It
w o u ld fo llo w to a n in tellig e n t lay m a n th a t t h e “ p e rp e tu a l ea se m e n t rig h ts” w o u ld a p p ly to
eac h par agr aph t her eaf

t er , not i ng espe ci al l y t hatno qual i f i cat i on i s m ade thatt he parki ng and si gn age p rovi si on s ar e no t , i n fact , easem ents . ¶1 4
. If th e inten t of th e p arti es is no t yet asc ertaine d after “fo u r co rne rs” a n alys is, the co u rt
w i l l empl oy any appl i cabl e ca nons of contr actcons truct i on. O ne s uch ca non of c ont r act
cons truct i on enumer at ed by thi s C our ti s that“gr eatw ei ghts houl d be gi ven t o pr act i cal
cons truct i on w hi ch the part i es have pl ace d upon the i ns trum ent . ” P u rs u e, 558 S o. 2d at353 ( ci t i ng St

. R egis P aperCo. v. Floyd , 2 3 8 S o . 2 d 7 4 0 , 7 4 4 (M iss. 1 9 7 0 )). T h e fa cts h ere i ndi cat e thatbot h part i es bel i eved thatparki ng and s i gnage w er e partof the perpetual
e a se m e n t u n til W a rre n c h a n g e d h is m in d in 1 9 9 8 . W h e n D e riv a u x p u rc h a se d th e p ro p e rty
a n d d e c id e d to p u t u p h is o w n s ig n , h e so u g h t th e a p p ro v a l o f W a rre n , w h o d e fe rre d to B enni gan’ s m anage m ent . T he ac t i ons t aken a tthatt i m e by bot h part i es i ndi cat e thatt hey

### 8

b o th b eli ev ed the righ ts un d er th e e a se m en t w ere p erp etua l, run n ing w ith D eriva u x ’s property. In addi t i on , W arr en did nott ake any act i on t o show that he beli eved o therw i se
u n til 1 9 9 8 , w h e n h e first d e m a n d e d th a t D e riv a u x e ith e r ta k e th e sig n d o w n o r p a y re n t. ¶1 5. W ar r en al s o ar gues t hatthe Rec i pr oc a l Ea s e mentl a c ks t he s peci f i c des cr i pt i on
re q u ir e d fo r a v a lid e a s e m e n t. A n y d e s c ri p tio n o f a n e a s e m e n t n e e d s “ a c c u ra c y a n d c la ri ty .” Mo r a n v. S ims , 8 73 So
. 2 d 10 67 , 1 07 0 ( M i s s . Ct
. App. 2 00 4)
. The Rec i pr oc a l E as ement
s peci f i cal l y des cr i bes the ac ces s eas ement , w i th r efer ence t o an att ache d pl atm ap. T he d o c u me n ta l s o p r o v i d e s f o ra b u s i n e s s s i g n whi c h ma y b e l o c a t e d “ 1
. 5 f e e tf r o m s a i d Ro n C. S m ith , N o rt h p ro p e rt y lin e , a n d 3 5 fe e t W e s tw a rd fr o m th e S o u th e a s t C o rn e r o f t h e W . W . W arr en pr operty. ” The Reci pr ocal Eas ement ’ s de s cr i pt i on of both the acc es s a nd si gn age
ar eas cert ai nly i s s uf

f i ci entt o es t abl i s h an ea s ement , as i tpr ovi des acc ur acy a nd cl ar i ty as t o the l ocat i on. ¶1 6. T he R eci pr oc a l Ea s e ment ’ s d e s c r i pt i on o f the p a r ki ng s pa c e s d oe s n oto n i t s f ace p ro v id e a c c u ra c y a n d c lar ity . T h e d o c u m e n t p ro v id e s th a t “p a rties w ith b u sin e ss in ter e sts
m a y c ro s s -p a rk in fo u r s p a c e s o w n e d b y W . W . W a rr e n lo c a te d S o u th o f B e n n ig a n ’s ,” al though nei therthe documentnorthe pl atm ap expl i ci t l y i dent i f i es f ourdi s t i nctparki ng
s pace s . T hi s C our thas s t at ed, how ever , that“[ w ] hen the gr anti s ambi guous the cons truct i on g iv e n b y th e p a rties th e m se lv e s, a s p ro v e d b y th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e y e x e rc ise th e ir rig h ts
u n d e r t h e c o n v e y a n c e , is le g a l e v id e n c e .” Capital E lec. P ow erA s s ’n v. H inson , 84 So. 2d 4 0 9 , 4 1 2 (M iss. 1 9 5 6 ) (cit ing T h o m p so n o n R ea l Pro p erty V o l. 2 § 5 8 1 , 1 8 8 -18 9 )). In H inson , thi s C our thel d that“[ t ] he gene r al rul e i s thatw her e the gr anti s i n gener al t erm s , t he

### 9

ex erc ise o f th e righ t, w ith the a cq u iesce n ce o f bo th pa rt ies, i n a pa rt icular co u rse o r m an n er, fi x e s th e ri g h t a n d li m its it to th e p a rt ic u la r c o u rs e o r m a n n e r i n w h ic h it h a s b e e n e n jo y e d .” I d . at413. “Thi s rul e appl i es notal one t o the l ocat i on of the ea s ement , butal s o t o the ext ent ther eof
. . . i tappl i es t o the cour s e, m anner , ext ent , and l ength. ” I d. ¶17
. T he R eci procal E asem ent i s, as W arr en ar gu es, am biguou s as t o the parki ng spaces. A n y a m b ig u ity , h o w e v e r, s h o u ld b e c o n s tru e d a g a in s t th e d ra ft in g p a rt y . I d . a t 4 1 3 . It i s undi s put ed thatW arr en’ s att orney dr af t ed the R eci pr ocal E as ement . B eca us e W arr en, as t he dr af t i ng party, di d notdes i gnat e the l ocat i on of the eas ement , S m i th and D er i vaux w er e f r ee to se lec t a s u itab le lo c a tio n , tak in g in to a c c o u n t th e in ter e s t o f W a rre n , p e r th e ru le in H inson . D eri vau x, and presum ably Sm i th b efor e him , used the four parki ng spaces nearest h is o w n o ffic e , at th e e x tre m e so u th en d o f W a rre n ’s p ro p e rty . A n y o b jec tio n b y W a rre n to the parki ng s pace s s el ect ed by Sm i th and D er i vaux s houl d have been m ade w i thi n a
r eas onabl e t i m e. B eca us e W arr en di d notobj ect , the l ocat i on of the f ours pace s w as det erm i ned by the “e xer ci s e of the r i ght ” by D er i vaux, w i th W arr en’ s acqui es cenc e. ¶18. Forthe f

or egoi ng r eas ons , thi s Courtf i nds thatthe county courtdi d noterri n f i ndi ng th a t th e d o c u m e n t cr e a ted a p e rp e tu a l ea se m e n t as to b o th p a rk in g a n d sig n a g e . F u rth e r, th is C ourtfi nd s t hatt he t erm s of the R eci pr ocal E as ement , al ong w i th the exe r ci s e of the r i ght b y D eriva u x , fi x ed the lo ca ti o n o f th e p ark ing sp ac es as th e fou r l o ca ted n ea rest D eriva u x ’s pr operty. T hi s C our tther ef or e af f i r m s the rul i ng of

the cha ncery court , w hi ch f ound a perpetual eas ementas t o acc es s , parki ng s pace s , and s i gnage. B . W h ether the co u rt erred in aw ard i n g d am ag es f or lost p rofi ts .

### 1 0

¶ 1 9
. W a rre n a rg u e s th a t t h e c h a n c e ry c o u rt e rre d in a ffirm in g a n a w a rd o f lo st-p ro fits d am ag es to D eriva u x , asse rtin g th a t no ev iden ce in the rec o rd d em o n str ates tha t W arren ’s
r emoval of

the s i gn w as caus al l y re l at ed t o D er i vaux’ s l os ti ncome. W arr en al s o ar gues t hat D er i vaux’ s t es t i m ony w as nots uppor t ed by the bes tevi dence oradequa t e document at i on. ¶ 2 0
. A p a rty se e k in g re c o v e ry f o r lo s t p ro fits m u st e sta b lish th e c laim w ith re a so n a b le
c e rt a in ty , n o t b a s e d o n m e re s p e c u la tio n a n d c o n je c tu re . L ovet

t v. E. L . G arn er, Inc. , 511 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ); I s he e v. Peo

ple ’s Bank , 7 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 1 , 1 0 1 3 (M iss . C t. A pp. 1998)
. D amages a r e deemed s pecul at i ve onl y w hen the ca us e i s uncert ai n, notw hen th e a m o u n t is u n c e rt a in
. P arkerT r actor& I

m plem ent Co. v. Johnson , 81 9 So
. 2d 12 34, 1 23 9 (M i ss. 20 02 ). “W here i ti s r easona bly cer t ai n thatdam age h as r esul t ed, m ere
uncert ai nty as t o the amount w i l l notpr ecl ude the r i ghtof r ecove ry orpr eventa j ury deci s i on
aw ar ding d amages . ” Cain v. Mid-South P um p Co. , 4 5 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). W h e n lo ss is re a lize d , b u t “th e e x ten t of the inju ry an d the am o u n t of d a m a g e are n o t ca p a b le of exac tand accur at e pr oof , ” damages m ay be a w ar ded i f the evi dence l ays “a f

oundat i on
w h ich w ill e n a b le th e trier o f fa c t to m a ke a fa ir a n d re a so n a b le e stim a te of the amountof damag e. ” I

d . a t 1 0 5 0 . T h is C o u rt h a s re c o g n ize d p a st e a rn in g s a s a su ffic ien t m e th o d to
e s tim a te lo s t p ro fi ts . I

s h e e, 737 So. 2d at1013 ( ci t i ng K ais er Inv. , Inc. v. L in n A gri prises, I nc. , 5 3 8 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 6 (M is s. 1 9 8 9 ); Sanders v. D ant z ler , 37 5 S o. 2d 77 4, 77 7 (M i ss. 1 9 7 9 )). ¶21. T he tr i al co urtaw arded D eri vau x $1 4, 58 0 i n com pensa t ory damages f orl os s of i ncome, al ong w i th $1, 350 f oreac h m onth unt i l W arr en r emoved t he f ence .

### 1 1

¶22. D er i vaux’ s evi dence s uppor t i ng an aw ar d of damages f or l os t pr of

i t s i s compri s ed of cal cul at i ons bas ed on pr oduct i on r eport s f orthe year s 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. W arr en
re m o v e d D e riv a u x ’s s ig n o n Ju n e 4 , 2 0 0 5 . D e riv a u x th e re fo re c laim s th a t h is lo st p ro fits shou l d b e cal culat ed as t he av erage nu m ber of n ew p oli ci es sol d per m on th du ri ng 20 04 l ess the s ame aver age dur i ng 2006. D er i vaux es t i m at ed thathe l os tan ave r age of tw enty- s even
new pol i ci es perm onth af t erthe s i gn w as r emoved and parki ng w as bl ocked. D er i vaux pr ovi ded av erage gr os s - and net
- i ncome val ues f orpol i ci es s ol d. D er i vaux al s o attr i but ed
s om e l os s of

busi nes s t o W arr en’ s har as s m entof cus t om er s and em pl oyees . H e t es t i f i ed that
o n e o f h is e m p lo y e e s q u it b e c a u se o f W a rre n ’s c o n tin u e d h a ra ss m e n t. ¶23
. D eri vau x sho uld not be precl ud ed fr om recovery, so l on g as “he has produ ced the best
e v id e n c e a v a il a b le a n d it is s u ff ic ie n t to a ff

o rd a re a s o n a b le b a s is fo r e s tim a tin g h is lo s s .” Ca in , 45 8 S o. 2d at10 50
. “E xtr apo l at i ng actual pastprofi t s t o reach a fi gu re that r epresent [ s]
a n tic ip a te d fu tu re p ro fi ts [is ] a re a s o n a b ly c e rt a in m e th o d o f p ro v in g lo s t p ro fi ts .” B e n c h m a rk He a lth Ca re Ctr., In c ., v. Ca in , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 0 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶2 4
. B ec au se d o cum entat i on of the calcul ati o n an d the testi m o n y o f D eriva u x h im self w ere present ed at tri al , the co urtw as pr esent ed w i th am ple evidence up on w hich t o est i m at e l ost pr of i t s t o a r eas onabl e cert ai nty, and thi s C our ts houl d notdi s turb the dec i s i on of the tr i al
court . T he aw ar d of

damages f

orl os tpr of

i t s i s ther ef

or e af f i r m ed. I I . C ros s - A ppeal W he t he r t he c hanc e r y c our t e r r e d i n r e ve r s i ng t he awar d of puni t i ve dam ag e s and att orn eys’ f

ees.

### See also Andrew Jacks on Lif e I ns. Co. v . Wi ll iams , 566 So. 2d 1172 (Mi ss . 1990) ; 4 

### Bankers Li

fe& Cas. Co. v

. Crenshaw , 48 3 S o. 2 d 2 54 , 27 8 (M iss. 19 86 ); Co mm od ore Corp. v. Bail

ey , 393 So. 2d 467, 472 ( Mis s. 1981). Deriv auxwas aw arded$5 ,00 0 inpunitiv e damag es. 5 

### 1 2 ¶2 5. “The aw ar d of

puni t i ve d a mage s , a l on g w i th the a mounto f s uc h, ar e w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on of

the tr i erof

f act . ” Hurs t

v. S W Mis s . L egal

Ser vs . Cor

p. , 708 So. 2d 1347, 1350 ( M i s s . 1998). T his C our thas “s how n gr eatdef er ence t o [ tr i er s of

f act ] thathave a w ar ded puni t i ve damages
. ” Am . I nc om e Li

f e I ns . Co. v. Hol

lins , 83 0 S o. 2d 12 30 , 12 42 (M i ss. 20 02 ). A w ards of

pu nit i ve d am ages w i l l n ot be d i sturbed absent excepti on al ci rcum st ances,
s uch as w her e t he am ounti s arbi tr ary or unr eas onabl e, agai ns tt he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof th e e v id e n c e , o r s h o w s p a ss io n , b ias , o r p re ju d ice so a s to sh o c k th e c o n sc ien c e o f th e c o u rt. Id
. 4 ¶26. T he county courtaw ar ded puni t i ve dam ages and att orneys ’ f ees t o D er i vaux, f

i ndi ng 5 th a t W a rre n ’s a c tio n s to w a rd D e riv a u x an d D e riv a u x ’s p ro p e rty w e re m a licio u s o r g ro ss ly
n eg li g en t eno u g h to w arran t pu n it ive d a m a g e s fo r th e “ re p re h e n sib le c o n d u c t.” T h e c h an ce ry
c o u rt re v e rs e d th is a w a rd , a n d D e ri v a u x n o w a p p e a ls . T h e c h a n c e ry c o u rt h e ld th a t “
. . . W arr en’ s conducti n and of i t s el f ” does notj us t i f

y a puni t i ve- damages aw ar d. D er i vaux
as s ert s thatthe county court ’ s aw ar d of puni t i ve damages w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence and s ho uld nothave be en r ever s ed by the cha ncery court . M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot a t e d Se c t i on 1 1- 1- 65 ( 1) ( a ) a l l ows f orp un i t i ve d a mage s wher e a p l a i nt i f f s ho w s by cl earand convi nci ng e vi dence thatthe def endant“ac t ed w i th actual m al i ce, gr os s negl i gence

### 1 3

w hi ch evi dence s a w i l l f

ul , w ant on or r eckl es s di s r egar d fort he sa f ety of other s , orcomm i t t ed
ac tual frau d
. ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1-6 5 (1)(a) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶2 7. “M i s s i ssi pp i law d oes not f avorpuni t i ve damages ; t hey ar e cons i der ed an extr aor di nary r emedy and ar e al l ow ed ‘ w i th caut i on and w i thi n narr ow l i m i t s . ’ ” L i fe & Cas. I ns. Co. of

T enn. v. B r is tow , 529 S o. 2d 620, 622 ( quot i ng Standard Li f e I ns. Co. v. V

eal , 3 5 4 S o . 2 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 7 (M is s . 1 9 7 8 )). P u n iti v e d a m a g e s s h o u ld b e a w a rd e d in a d d iti o n to actua l orc ompe ns a t ory d a mage s w he r e “ the vi ol a t i on of a r i gh torthe a c tua l da m ages
s us t ai ned, i m porti ns ul t , f r aud, oroppr es s i on and notm er el y i nj ur i es , buti nj ur i es i nf l i ct ed i n the s pi r i tof

w ant on di s r egar d f

orthe r i ght s of

other s . . . . [ I n otherw or ds , ther e mustbe]
s om e el ementof

aggr es s i on or s om e col or i ng of i ns ul t , m al i ce orgr os s negl i gence , evi nci ng
ru th le s s d is re g a r d f

o rt h e ri g h ts o f o th e rs , s o a s to ta k e th e c a s e o u t o f t h e o rd in a ry ru le .” B ra d fie ld v. S c h w a rtz , 9 3 6 S o . 2 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶ 2 8
. C o u r ts h a v e a p p li e d t h e s a m e ru le s to e a s e m e n t g ra n ts a s to c o n tr a c ts . Tubb v. Mo n ro e C o u n ty E lec. P o w er A ss’n , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 7 (M iss. C t. A p p . 20 0 5 ). T h is C o u rt has hel d that“[ p] uni t i ve damages ar e r ecove r abl e i n br eac h of contr actcas es w here the br eac h r es ul t s f

r om an i nt ent i onal w r ong and w hen ther e has been a s how i ng of m al i ce or gr os s /r eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe r i ght s of

other s . ” P aracels u s Healt h Care Corp. v. W

il lard , 754 So. 2d 437, 442 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng A m . F uneral A s s urance Co. v. Hubb , 700 So. 2d 283, 285 ( M i s s . 1997) )
. “Puni t i ve damages ar e onl y appr opr i at e i n the mostegr egi ous cas es
s o as t o di s cour age s i m i l arc onducta nd s houl d onl y be aw ar ded i n cas es w her e the ac t i ons

### 1 4

are extr eme. ” Par ac e l

s us , 754 So. 2d at442 ( ci t i ng W ir t zv. Sw it z er , 5 86 So
. 2 d 77 5, 783 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). ¶ 2 9
. T h e c o u n ty c o u rt ju d g e fo u n d th a t W a rre n ’s a c tio n s to w a rd D e riv a u x a n d h is p ro p e rty “w ere m al i ci ou s i n m osti nst ances o r w ere possi bly only grossl y n egli gen ti n som e i nst ances, buti n any eve nt , the Pl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o puni t i ve damages i n addi t i on t o hi s actual damages for the D efe n d an t’ s re p reh en sible co n d u ct. ” S itti n g as th e tri er o f fact, the c o u n ty co u rt fo u n d th a t in 2 0 0 2 , W a rre n re stric ted a c c e ss to th e p a rk in g sp a c e s a n d d e m a n d e d p a y m e n t. I n 2005, W arr en di s connec t ed the pow ert o D er i vaux’ s s i gn, despi t e bei ng pr es ent ed w i t h t he R eci pr ocal E as ementby D er i vaux and overD er i vaux’ s demands t o cea s e t amper i ng. O n t hat d a y , W a rre n cu rse d at D e riv a u x . A few d a y s la ter , W a rre n tor e the sig n d o w n w ith th e h e lp
o f a b lo w to rc h , d a m a g in g th e s ig n in th e p ro c e ss . W a rre n a lso p lac e d p a rk in g b u m p e rs in the parki ng l ott o r es tr i ctD er i vaux’ s acc es s . D es pi t e D er i vaux’ s r eques t s , W arr en r ef us ed t o r emove t he bumper s , and di d s o onl y af t eran or derf

r om the county court . W arr en then
er ect ed a f

ence , des pi t e w arni ngs f r om D er i vaux’ s att orney thatthe f ence w oul d cr eat e a hazar d and m i ghtvi ol at e the courtor der
. T he f ence er ect ed by W arr en w as actual l y on D eri vau x’s property, co nfi rm ed attr i al b y W arr en’s ow n exp ertw i tness. E vidence w as al so pr es ent ed s how i ng t hatW arr en had ha r as s ed and i nt i m i dat ed D er i vaux’ s empl oyees and cust om ers on nu m erous occasi on s. ¶30. O n appea l , the chanc ery court w as “not convi nced t hat W arr en’ s conduct i n and of it self j u sti fi es a p u n it ive d am ag es a w ard
. ” T h e c h a n ce ry c o u rtd id n o t f ind D eriva u x ’s t es t i m ony r egar di ng W arr en’ s har r as s m entt o be suf f i ci ent . I n addi t i on, t he courtnot ed that

### 1 5

W arr en’ s r emoval of

D er i vaux’ s s i gn di d notpose any s af ety hazar ds or ca us e any i nj ur i es t o D er i vaux, hi s empl oyees orcus t om er s . C ons i der i ng t he t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , t he chanc ery courtf

ound that“W arr en’ s act i ons s t andi ng al one ca nnots uppor tan aw ar d of p u n itiv e d a m a g e s .” ¶3 1. T he deci s i on of the f i nd e r of f

a c t , the c ou nty c ou r t , s ho ul d no t be di s turbed abs ent
e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Holl in s, 830 So. 2d at1242. W e cannotsay thatt he aw ar d of puni t i ve damages w as arbi tr ary or unr eas onabl e oragai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the
e v id e n c e . F u rth e r, th e a w a rd d o e s n o t ev id e n c e p a ss io n , b ias , o r p re ju d ice . A c c o rd in g ly , this C ou rtfi nd s that the ch ancery co urterr ed in r eversi ng the aw ard of pun i t i ve d am ages. ¶3 2. T hi s C our tfur t herfi nds t hatat t orne ys ’ f e e s a r e pr op e ri n thi s c a s e , a s pu ni t i ve damages w er e pr oper l y aw ar ded by the county court . “[ A ] bs ents t atut ory authori t y or
con tractual pr ov i si on s, at t orneys’ f ees canno tbe aw arded u nles s pun i t i ve d am ages are al so pr oper . ” Sm ith v. D ors ey , 599 So. 2d 529, 550 ( M i s s . 1992)
. A s di s cus s ed supra , the c o u n ty
courtw as pr es ent ed w i th s uf f i ci entevi dence t o aw ar d puni t i ve damages , and ther ef or e, the chanc ery courterr ed i n r ever s i ng the aw ar d. CO NC L US I ON ¶33. O n di r ect appea l , thi s C our t af f i r m s the chanc ery court ’ s f i ndi ng that the R eci pr ocal E as ementcr eat ed one perpetual eas ementas t o acce s s , par ki ng, and s i gnage. A l s o on di r ect appea l , thi s C our thol ds thatthe cha ncery cour tdi d noter ri n aw ar di ng dam ages t o D er i vaux f orl os tpr of

i t s . O n c r os s - appea l , thi s C our tr ever s es the cha ncery court ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat th e c o u n ty c o u rt e rre d in a w a rd in g p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a n d a tto rn e y s’ f e e s to D e riv a u x ; th is

### 1 6

C o u rtth ere fore rend ers j u d g m en t co n sist en t w ith th e fi n d ing s of th e co u n ty co u rt a s to pu nit i ve d am ages an d att orneys’ f ees. ¶ 3 4
. ON DI RE CT AP P EA L : AF F I RMED . ON CR OS S - AP P EA L: RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. SM I TH , C . J. , W A LL ER A N D D I A Z, P. JJ . , EA SLE Y , C A R LSO N , G R A V ES, DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR.