IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-CA-00283-COA JOHN ANTHONY MANSOUR, GEORGE MANSOUR JR. AND MICHAEL MANSOUR APPELLANTS

v. GENE G. STOCK APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/06/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JANACE H. GOREE COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: W A SHINGTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: PHILIP MANSOUR JR. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JAMES MORTIMER CREW S III NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 11/20/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., WILSON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ. WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. J o h n A n t hony Mansour, George Mansour J r ., and Michael Mansour f iled an act i o n f or trespass against Gene Stock ( Stock), requesting actual and puni t ive dam ages f or their injuries. I n return, Stock f iled a counterclaim asserting that the Mansours had c a used injury

to h is hardwood tim

ber and also sought dam ages. The W a shington County Chancery Court f ound that the Mansours did not m eet their burden o f proof , dism issed their claim , and f ound that Stock did not p u t on evidence to substantiate his claim s. Aggr i e v e d , t h e M ansours appeal. Finding no error, we af f irm

. FACTS¶2. Togethe r , b r o t h e r s J o h n A n t h o n y M a nsour, G eorge Mansour Jr., a nd Michael

Mansour own an eighty -acre tract of land i n W ashington County , Mississippi. The land was purchased f

or recreational p urposes, specif ically to hunt birds, waterf owl, and deer. Portions of the l a n d a r e subm erged in water f or m ost of the y ear, and a s a result, the land was designated a s a natural wetland preserve by the f ederal governm ent. The land is s u rrounded by 1,800 acres owned by

Stock and his f

am ily

. ¶3. During the 2014-15 waterf owl hunting season, the Mansours discovered that a twoto-f our-f oot-wide ditch had b een created on their land, a nd two p ipes had been rem oved. The two-to-f our-f oot-wide ditch started on the Mansours’ land a nd extended to the Stock land. The ditch breached the natural levee surrounding the Mansours’ land and caused the water

on the land to escape. The loss of the water prevented the Mansours f rom u sing the land f

or waterf owl hunting during the 2 014-15 hunting season. Although the Mansours did not witness any o ne c reating the ditch o r rem oving the pipes, they asserted that Stock or som eone at the direction of

Stock was responsible. ¶4. At trial, the Mansour brothers testif ied, along w i t h S t o c k , R obert “W alker” Stock, Wi l l i am Thom as McKinley , a nd several expert witnesses. The Mansours called W alk e r , Stock’s uncle, t o testif

y . W a l k e r testif

ied that S tock had directed him to c lear a line of roughly twenty to thirty f

eet around the property line that separated the Stock and Mansour properties on the S tock side. During his deposition, W alker stated that he was caref ul to stay
away f rom the Mansour property

. At trial, Stoc k adm itted t o instructing W alker to clear a roadway approxim ately t wenty f eet in width a r ound the perim e ter of the l and w ith the intent

2of creating an identif iable boundary line to prevent trespassing by both parties, but he

m aintained the clearing was d o n e solely o n his property

. There was no o ther evidence presented that there was any o ther work done on or near t he M ansours’ land at the i nstruction of Stock. ¶5. In addition to th e d i t c h , t h e M a n s o u r s a sserted that the rem o val of two pipes contributed to the drainage of water of f their property

. The Mansours m a i ntain t hat one of the pipes is on t heir property and that t he o ther i s on Stock’s property

. However, at trial, Stock and his expert survey or, Melvin Cannatella, testif ied that b oth pipes are l ocated on the Stock property , and no evidence other than George Mansour’s testim ony was subm itted to rebut Stock’s claim

. George Mansour testif ied t h a t S tock’s f

ather gave him perm ission to place the pipes on Stock’s land, bu t S t o c k w a s u naware of this arrangem e nt a nd f ound it suspicious considering his f a m i l y and the Mansours h ad recently been in easem e nt litigation. 1 ¶6. T h e M a n sours a lso introduced evidence that Stock intended to install a g am e f ence around thei r p r o p e r t y to prevent deer hunting on their land. Stock adm itted that he considered installing a gam e f ence, however, af

ter investigating the legality of it changed his

m ind. In r esponse to their claim s, Stock f iled a counterclaim a sserting that George Mansour and a nother unidentif

ied individual entered onto h is property and d a m a g ed his hardwood tim ber by causing water to e scape f rom the Mansours’ land and becom e trapped am ong his tim ber, causing the value to dim i nish. However, h e did not present any evidence at trial to

1 T h ere is a h isto r

y b e tw e en th e f

am ilies r eg ard in g b o u n d ary lin e s an d th e u sag e o f lan d , in clu d i n g o n e p rev io u sly a d d ressed b y t h i s C o u rt. S ee G a n ier v. M

a n so u r , 7 6 6 S o . 2 d 3 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). 3support his assertions.

¶7. Af ter considering al l o f t h e evidence, t he chancery court f ound that the Mansours of f ered no proof that they a ctually saw the water draining o f f their land or witnessed Stock,

or s om eone under the direction of S tock, d igging the ditch in question. The M ansours sim ply asked the court to inf

er that S tock had invaded their land, b ut the chancery c ourt f ound that

even with Stock’s adm issions surrounding rem oval of the pipes, his actions did not suf f ice the cause of action against him

. Ultim ately , t he chancery court f ound that the Mansours did

not m eet their burden of proof by a p reponderance o f t h e e v i d ence to show that Stock or
any one u nder the instruction of Stock com m i tt e d t r e spass and subsequently d id not award dam ages, actual or punitive. A dditionally , the c hancellor d ism issed Stock’s counterclaim because he put f

orth no proof to substantiate his claim s. Aggrieved, the Mansours appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶8. “ T h i s C o urt has a lim ited standard of r eview in appeals f rom the chancery

court. ”
Jones v. G raphia , 95 So. 3d 751, 753 (¶6) (Miss. C t. App. 2012). “ T he standard o f review of a c hancellor’s d ecision is abuse of discretion.” Id. “An appellate c ourt will not disturb the f actual f indings of a chancellor when supported b y s u bstantial e v i d e n c e unless we can
say with reasonable c ertainty that the chancellor abused [ h e r ] discretion, was m anif estly
wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied an err o n e o u s l e g al standard.” Id. “ However, on questions of

law, appellate courts em

ploy a de novo standard of

review.” Id.
DISCUSSION
I. W hether the trial court e rr e d i n finding that the Mansours failed to establish sufficient proof of Stock’s trespass and resulting damages.

4¶9. T h e M a n sours a ssert that circum stantial evidence is suf f icient to prove t h a t S t o c k trespassed onto their land and as a result d eprived t hem of t he enjoy m ent and use of the land f or the 2014-15 waterf

owl season. This Court has held that “[ l]iability f or trespass requires
p r o o f o f : (1) interf

e rence with the right of exclusive possession of one’s land and (2) an invasion that is the direct result of som e a c t com m itted by the def e ndant.” Gaw v. Seldon , 85 So. 3d 312, 318 ( ¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (internal quotation m ark o mi t t e d). Furtherm o re, “because trespass is an intentional tort, there m ust be proof that the trespasser intended to enter upon the particular piece of land in question.” Id. ¶10. H e r e , t h e M a n s ours claim that the entry onto their land and r em o val o f t h e p i p e s constituted a trespass. Although Stock adm i tted to rem oving the pipes, 2 Stock, through his

own t estim ony and that o f an expert survey or, d im inished their claim by showing t h a t t he pipes were on his property and t hat it was within his rights as a landowner to rem ove them

. As f o r t he ditch, Stock put f

orth evidence that his trackhoe-bucket s hovel was only capable of cutting ditches i n six-f

eet w idths; theref

ore, it would have been im possible f or him to have created the two-to-f

our-f o ot ditch that the Man sours asserted caused the drainage. This evidence w a s n o t rebutted. Accordingly , we f i nd that there was substantial evidence to support the chancery court’s f inding that the Mansours did not m eet their burden of proof , theref ore, this issue is m e ritless.
II. W hether the trial court erred in failing to find that Stock’s actions were intentional, malicious, and grossly negligent.

2 Walk er testif

ied th at h e recalled , af

ter g iv in g h is d ep o sitio n , t h a t h e d i d rem o v e o n e p ip e b u t w as u n clear at th e tim e o f th e d e p o sitio n w h e th er it w as a b eav er d am o r a p ip e. 5¶11. In addition to asserting that circum stantial e v idence is suf f icient to show trespass, the
Mansours m aintain that Stock’s actions were i n t e ntional, m alicious, and grossly negligent and consequently p rovide t he b asis f or their punitive dam ages claim

. The Mississippi Suprem e Court has held that, “[ p]unitive dam ag e s m ay be awarded as punishm ent f or trespass where the proof shows the trespass was willf u l, grossly negligent or w anton.” R & S
Dev. Inc. v. W

ilson , 534 So. 2d 1008, 1013 (Miss. 1988). However, the suprem e c ourt also held that “punitive dam ages are not recoverable absent an award of actual dam ages” and, in the case at hand, the Mansours have not p roved that Stock trespassed onto their land to receive actual dam ages nor have they proved that his actions were intentional, m alicious, and grossly n egligent to receive punitive dam ages. Prescott v. Leaf River Forest Prod. Inc

. 740 So. 2d 301, 312 (¶25) (Miss. 1999). Accordingly , this issue is without m erit.
CONCLUSION ¶12. A f t e r r e v i e w o f t h e record, we do not f ind that the chancery c o u r t a b u s e d i t s discretion, was m anif

estly w rong, clearly erroneous, or applied a n e rroneous legal standard. Theref ore, we af f irm the chancery

court’s decision. ¶13. AFFIRMED. LEE, C .J., IRVING A ND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

6