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 9 - CA- 0 1 5 8 1 - S CT THE LA M

AR COM

PANI ES
v. C O C A J O T R U S T ; C L I F TO N B . C L A R K , S R ., T RU S TOR ; COL I

N RAY CLAR K, T

RU S TEE FOR COCAJ O TRUS T; AND M

ARY CLARK D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 16/ 2009 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. J AM E S B. P E RS ONS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: M ARK D. HERBE RT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEES : M AC K A
. BETH EA NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 02/ 17/ 2011 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 G R A V E S, P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D P I E R C E , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n D ece m ber2004, t he C oC aJ o T rus t ; C l i f t on B . C l ark, Sr
. , T rus t or ; C ol i n R ay C l ark, T rus t ee; and M ary C l ark ( col l ect i vely “t he Trus t ”) f i l ed s ui ti n the C hance ry C our tof H arr i s on C ount y al l egi ng thatD ebbi e R . Pi t t s , a/k/ a D ebbi e R . C uevas (“ Pi t t s ”) , the f or m er trus t ee of

the T rus t , had m i s appr opr i at ed pr operty of the T rus t . In 2005, af t ers ui thad bee n f i l ed, Pi t t s ent er ed i nt o l eas e agr eement s w i th T he Lam arC om pani es ( “Lam ar ”) t o pl ace out dooradver t i s i ng structur es , vi s i bl e t o t r avel er s on Int er s t at e 10, on the s ubj ectpr operty. ¶2. I n 2009, the T rus t s entc orr es pondence t o L amar as s ert i ng that Pi t t s di d not ow n t he
s ubj ectpr operty and w as notauthor i zed t o execut e the 2005 l eas es ; and f ur thernot i f

yi ng

### 2

L a m a r th a t a p a d lo c k e d fen c e h a d b e e n co n stru c ted aro u n d it s a d v e rtisin g stru c tu re s, as w e ll
as a ll eg ing m o n etary d am ag es fo r w il lf u l tresp ass a n d b rea ch o f co n tr ac t aga inst L am ar. S h o rtly th e re a fte r, L a m a r file d a “ M o tio n f o r L e a v e to In ter v e n e ” a n d a ttac h e d a s a n e x h ib it its p ro p o s e d “ In te rv e n e r’ s C o m p la in t f o r I n ju n c tiv e , D e c la ra to ry , a n d In te rp le a d e r R e lie f.” T hatpr opos ed compl ai nts oughtthatthe cha ncery courtdecl ar e “the r i ght f ul a nd true ow ner of the s ubj ectpr operty[ ; ] ” det erm i ne “the val i di ty of [ L amar ’ s ] s i gn l ocat i on l eas es [ ; ] ” and “i dent i f[ y] the party orpart i es t o w hom i ts houl d pay the r ent al s s peci f i ed i n s ai d s i gn l ocat i on l eas es . ” T he pr opos ed com pl ai ntfurtheras ked thatL amarbe perm i t t ed t o i nt erpl ead i t s re ntpayment s i nt o t he courtr egi s try, and r eques t ed a t empora ry and perm anenti nj unct i on t o pr eventthe Trus tf

r om denyi ng L amaracc es s t o i t s s i gn s tructur es . T here af t er , t he chanc ery courtgr ant ed t empora r y i nj unct i ve r el i ef , or der i ng the Trus tt o perm i tL amar

“ a c c e ss to its sig n stru c tu re s p e n d in g fin a l d isp o sitio n o f th is m a tter” a n d o rd e rin g L a m a r to “i nt erpl ead a nd depos i ti nt o the r egi s try of thi s [ c] our tany r ent al s thatar e now due orw hi ch
m a y b e c o m e d u e u n d e r th e ter m s o f its le a se ag re e m e n ts w ith [P itt s] u n til fu rth e r o rd e r o f th is [c]o u rt.” A p p ro x im a te ly tw o m o n th s a fte r h a v in g g ra n ted L a m a r a p o rtio n o f th e re lief it
s ought , the cha ncery cour tdeni ed Lam ar ’ s “M ot i on f orL eave t o I nt ervene, ” conc l udi ng t hat L amar ’ s i nt er es tw oul d be “a dequat el y pr ot ect ed” by Pi t t s . F r om thatrul i ng, L amarf i l ed a
n o tice o f a p p e a l. FACTS ¶3. O n O ct ober 9, 19 98, C l ark, Sr
. es t abl i s hed the T rus t f or the “f or emost purpos e” of pr ovi di ng as s i s t ance t o hi s thr ee c hi l dr en “i n f ur ther ance of thei reducat i on beyond the hi gh

### Acc ording to theTrust ’s ame nded com plaint , Pitts “had a re lati onship with [Cl ar k, 1 

### Sr.], but nev er married h im andbetw een th em on e childwas b orn. . . .” Amo ng the p rop erties convey ed w ere the “fu ll legal [r]ights to three (3) L andLease 2 

### Agre em ent s”c re at ed in Dec em ber 1996 betwee n Hea dri ck Out door, Inc . and Clark, Sr. for “e re cting and/or

maint aining” a dverti sing struc tures on thesubj ec t property. Lam ar purc has ed He adric k Outdoor in 1996. 3 s chool l evel
. . . . ” Pi t t s w as des i gnat ed as the trus t ee. B etw een N ovember19 98 and 1 Ja n u a ry 1 9 9 9 , C lar k , S r. co n v e y e d se v e ra l p ro p e rties , as “ re s o f th e [T ru st], ” to P itt s, “ in T rus t . ” O n A pr i l 29, 2002, a “Spec i al W arr anty D eed” pr ovi ded thatC l ark, Sr
. “does

2 her eby s el l , convey, w arr ants peci f i cal l y and del i verunt o” Pi t t s the s ubj ectpr operty l ocat ed i n H arr i s on C ounty. T his “S peci al W arr anty D eed” m ade no r ef er ence t o the conve yance b e in g “ in T ru s t.” ¶ 4
. O n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , th e T ru st file d a c o m p lain t ag a in st P itt s in th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt, al l egi ng thats he “r ef

us es t o r eturn the par cel s deeded t o heri n t rus t , . . . has encumber ed a p a rc e l o f s a id p ro p e rty , . . . h a s re tain e d re n ts a n d fa iled to p a y sa id m o n ies in to th e tru s t.” T h e c o m p la in t s o u g h t, in tera lia , an “[ o] r derthat[ P i t t s] r e- convey a l l r eal pr operty t o t he trus t. . . . ” Thats ame day, a “ Lis P endens N ot i ce” w as fi l ed, al l egi ng thatPi t t s had “mi s appr opr i at ed” pr operty f r om the Trus t . Pi t t s ’ s ans w eracknow l edged s he “ha s r ef us ed to re tu rn th e p a rc e ls o f p ro p e rt y . H o w e v e r, s h e d e n ie s th e y w e re d e e d e d to h e r i n tru s t . . . .” A c c o rd in g to P itts , th e s u b je c t p ro p e rt y w a s c o n v e y e d to h e r, “ in d iv id u a lly , in fe e s im p le ,” by C l ark, Sr. O n M arch 16, 200 5, the T rustf i l ed a “C ancell at i on of Prope rty C on vey ances” agai ns tPi t t s , “f

ul l y r es t or [ i ng] al l l egal r i ght s of sa m e t o the dul y appoi nt ed trus t ee of [ the T ru s t] . . . .”

### The l ea se s c omm enc ed on June 15, 2005. 3 

### 4 ¶5 . O n M a y 1 9 , 20 0 5 , P itts en tered i n to “M em o ran d u m o f L e a se A g re e m e n ts” w ith L a m a r, “ le a s in g a p o rt io n o f” th e s u b je c t p ro p e rt y fo r “ a n in itia l te rm o f s ix (6 ) y e a rs . . . .” O n O ct ober6, 2005, Pi t t s ent er ed i nt o tw enty- year“Si gn L ocat i on L eas es ” w i th L amarf or 3 the pl ace m entof

out dooradvert i s i ng s tructur es on the s ubj ectpr operty. ¶6. O n A pr i l 7, 2009, couns el f or C l ark, Sr
. s ent a l et t er t o L amar w hi ch pr ovi ded that P itt s “ is n o t an d h a s n e v e r b e e n th e o w n e r o f th e p ro p e rty , n o r h a s s h e h a d th e a u th o rity to
exec ut e a l eas e w i th yourcompany o n beh al f of [ C l ark, Sr
. ] ; ther ef

or e, ther e s houl d be no p a y me n tma d e t o [ P i t t s ] f o rth e l e a s e o f

th e s u b j e c tp r o p e r ty . ” T h e l e t t e ra d d e d th a t“ my c lien t h a s c o n stru c ted a p a d -lo c k e d fe n c e su rro u n d in g th e sig n s y o u h a v e c o n stru c ted o n th is p ro p e rt y , a n d a n y in d iv id u a l c a u g h t o n th e p ro p e rt y w ill b e s u b je c t to a rr e s t f

o r t re s p a s s in g .” O n M ay 19, 2009, couns el f orC l ark, Sr
. s enta s econd l et t er t o L am arw hi ch cl ai m ed that L amarow ed $123, 766. 49 i n “damages as a r es ul tof the company’s w i l l f

ul tr es pas s and b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t f

o r t h e le a s e o f t h e a b o v e -d e s c ri b e d p ro p e rt y . . . .” ¶7. O n M ay 29, 2009, L amar f i l ed a “M ot i on f

or L eave t o I nt ervene, ” w i th i t s pr opos ed “I nt ervener ’ s Com pl ai ntf orI nj unct i ve, D ecl ar at ory a nd I nt erpl eade rR el i ef ” att ache d as an e x h ib it. See ¶ 2 supra (reg ard ing sp ec if ic reli ef so u g h t i n the p rop o sed co m p lai n t)
. A cc o rdin g to L am ar, Pit ts “h as c lai m ed
. . . o w n ersh ip o f th e su b ject pro p erty b y w ay o f a
s peci al w arr anty deed f

r om [ C l ark, Sr
. ]
. . . t o [ Pi t t s ]
. . . dat ed A pr i l 29, 2002.
. . . B y w ay o f t h is in s tru m e n t, L a m a r h a s a fa c ia lly v a lid ri g h t to m a in ta in its s ig n s tru c tu re s . . . .” T her eaf t er , Pi t t s f

i l ed a “ R es pons e t o M ot i on f or L eave t o I nt ervene a nd/ orA l t ernat i ve R el i ef ” i n s uppor tof

L amar ’ s m ot i on.

### 5

¶ 8
. A lth o u g h th e d o c u m e n t is n o t in c lu d e d in th e re c o rd , th e d o c k e t re fle c ts th a t o n Ju ly 9 , 2 0 0 9 , a “ M o t i o n t o I n t e r v e n e / T RO ” n o t i c e d b y L a ma r ’ s a t t o rn e y wa s f i l e d a n d h e a r d
. On J ul y 21, 2009, the cha ncery courtgr ant ed part i al r el i ef t o L amarby or der i ng: th e [T ru st] an d a n y o n e a c tin g fo r o r o n th e ir b e h a lf a re h e re b y o rd e re d to r ef r ai n f r om t aki ng any ac t i ons to den y [ L amar ] acc es s t o i t s s i gn s tructur es pendi ng f

i nal di s pos i t i on of thi s m att erby thi s [ c] our t . I ncl uded i n thi s or der i s a r equi r ementthatthe [ T rus t ] , ora ny pa r ty unde rthei rc ontr ol, provi de acc es s thr ough any f

ence s thatar e now curr ent l y l ocat ed on the pr operty w hi ch preven tL am ar’ s f

ree and o pen access t o it s si gn structures.

. . . [L a m a r] sh a ll i n terp lea d a n d d e p o sit in to th e re g istry o f th is [c]o u rt an y re n tals that ar e no w du e or w hich m ay b ecom e du e un der the term s of i t s l ease a g re e m e n ts w ith [P itt s] u n til fu rth e r o rd e r o f th is [c ]ou rt. ¶9. A hear i ng on L amar ’ s “M ot i on f or L eave t o Int ervene” w as hel d on Sept ember16, 2 0 0 9 , at w h ich the ch a n c e llo r d e ter m in e d th a t “u n d e r R u le 2 4
. . . the L a m a r in ter e st w o u ld be ade qu at e l

y pr ot ect edby [ Pi t t s ] and herabl e couns el
. . . . ” ( E m phas i s added. ) T he
c h a n c e llo r a d d e d th a t: L amarw as n’ tnece s s ary as a mat t erof di s cr et i on on m y part . W e’ r e havi ng e n o u g h tro u b le g e tti n g this law su it star ted a n d fin ish e d a s it is . . . th e v a lid ity or i nv al i dity o f the vari ou s i nst rum ents here i nsofaras conv eyan ces t o a trust ort o [ Pi t t s ] i ndi vi dual l y i s ul t i m at el y w hatt he i nt er es tof L amarturns on, and th a t is th e p o s itio n h e re o f [ c o u n s e l f o r P itts ] a n d [P itts ]. A ft e r t h e c h a n c e ry c o u rt e n te re d its o rd e r d e n y in g L a m a r’ s “ M o tio n fo r L e a v e to In te rv e n e ,” L a m a r file d a n o tice o f a p p e a l. I S S UE ¶1 0
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: W h e th e r th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g L a m a r’s “ M o tio n fo r L e a v e to In te rv e n e .”

### 6 A N A L Y S IS ¶1 1. W hen L amar fi l ed i t s “M ot i on forL eave t o I nt e r ve ne , ” i ta t t a c he d a pr opos ed “I nt ervener ’ s Com pl ai ntf orI nj unct i ve, D ecl ar at ory, and I nt erpl eade rR el i ef ” t o the mot i on. T h is p ro p o se d c o m p lain t w a s p ro v id e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 24( c) , w hi ch r equi r es thata mot i on t o i nt ervene “be accompani ed by a pl eadi ng sett ing forth the claim o r de fen se fo r w h ich interve n ti o n is so u g h t. ” M iss. R . C iv. P. 24 (c). I n the pr opos ed compl ai nt , Lam arr eques t ed thatthe chanc ery c our tdecl ar e the true ow ner o f th e su b

ject pro p erty; de term ine th e v ali d ity o f L am ar’s sig n loc ati o n lease s; an d iden ti fy the party t o w hom L amars houl d pay r ent . O f i m portt o thi s appea l , L amarf ur theras ked that itb e a ll o w ed to interp lead it s ren t pay m en ts i n to the co u rtreg istry, an d req u ested a tem p o rary
an d pe r mane nti nj un c t i on t o pr e ve ntthe Trus tf r om de ny i ng La mara c c e s s t o i t s s i gn structures. ¶ 1 2
. A h e a rin g w a s n o tice d a n d , the re a fte r, th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt issu e d a n o rd e r th a t p a rtially grant ed the t em po rary rel i ef s ou gh tby L am ar. S pecif i cal l y, the chan cel l or enj oined t he T rust from d en y ing L am ar a cc ess to it s sig n struc tures, p en d ing a fina l dispo sit ion o f th e m att er, and or der ed thatL amari nt erpl ead f utur e rentpayment s i nt o the courtr egi s try. T her ef or e, this C o u rtfi n d s tha t w h en the c h an ce ry c o u rtp arti all y a w ard ed the relief so u g h t by L am ar, i tef f ect i vel y part i al l y gr ant ed Lam ar ’ s “M ot i on f orL eave t o I nt ervene. ” I n otherw or ds , by gr an t i ng s a i d r e l i e f

, the c ha nc e r y c ou r te xe r c i s e d j ur i s di c t i on ov e ra l l pa r t i e s , i nc l udi ng L am ar, an d ent er ed a de j ur e ruli n g w h ich g ran ted p arti al reli ef to L am ar. T h e c h an ce ry court ’ s s ubs equent , s ubs t ant i ve anal ys i s on the i nt ervent i on i s s ue mi ghtw el l have be en co rrect, bu t for th e fac t th at th e d ie ha d alread y b ee n ca st by v irtue o f i ts July 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , o rde r.

### 7

T h u s , L a ma rs h o u l d h a v e b e e n p e r mi t t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n th e p r o c e e d i n g a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. A ccor di ngl y, t hi s C our tre ver s es t he chanc ery cour t ’ s deni al of Lam ar ’ s “M ot i on f orL eave to In te rv e n e .” CO NC L US I ON ¶13. B as ed upon the af or ement i oned ana l ys i s , thi s C our tre ver s es the C hance ry C our tof H arr i s on C ounty’ s deni al of L amar ’ s “M ot i on f

orL eave to I nt ervene” and r emands f or f ur therpr ocee di ngs i n harm ony w i th thi s opi ni on. ¶14. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND G RAVE S , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.