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 4 9 - S CT M ON TY C. FLETCH

ER A ND SAND RA L. FLE TCHER
v. J I M M I E L . L YL ES

, L EONEZ

E C . L YL ESAN

D KEL LY DABB SREAL TY, I NC.
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 16/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S AM AC S . RI CH AR DS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN TS: K. F. BO AC KLE ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : EDD I E J . AB DEEN J U LI E P. RA TLI FF G. TOD D B UR W ELL NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED I N P AR T ; RE VE RS E D AND R E M A N D E D I N PA R T - 01/ 29/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s cas e ar i s es f r om a r eal
- es t at e t ransact i on i nvol vi ng a r es i dence l ocat ed at136 B r i dge W at erD r i ve, M adi s on, M i s s i s s i ppi . A f t ert he cl os i ng, t he buyer s , M onty C . Fl et cher
a n d S a n d r a L. F l e t c h e r( “ th e F l e t c h e r s ” ) , s u e d th e s e l l e r s , J i mmi e L. Ly l e s a n d Le o n e z e C. L yl es ( “the Lyl es es ”) , and the r eal es t at e f i r m , K el l y D abbs R eal ty, I nc. ( “D abbs ”) , al l egi ng v ariou s frau d , n eg li g en ce , a n d b rea ch -of-co n tr ac t claim s. T h e circu itco u rtg ran ted s u m m aryS i m m on s’ s r eal -es t at e agen tw as Joan T ho m as. 1 j ud gm ent t o the L yles es and D abb s, fi nd i ng that the st atute of l i m i t at i on s barr ed all cl ai m s. W e mustdet erm i ne w hetherthe cl ai m s ar e t i m e- barr ed and a l s o w hetherthe tr i al courtact ed
w i thi n i t s d i s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the Fl e t c he r s ’ mot i on t o a mend the c ompl a i ntt o add add i t i on al cl ai m s. BA CKGROUND ¶2. T he al l egat i ons of the compl ai nta r i s e f

r om the f

ai l ure t o d i scl ose vari ous al l eged def ect s i n t he home. T he Fl et cher s al l ege thatboth the Lyl es es and D abbs w ere aw ar e of def ect s i n the home t hatw er e notdi s cl os ed. Som e backgr ound i nf or m at i on i s hel pf

ul t o an under s t andi ng of

thi s di s put e. ¶3. Pr i ort o the Lyl es es , K enny Si m m ons ow ned t he hom e l ocat ed at136 B r i dge W at er D r i ve. Si m m ons deci ded t o s el l hi s hom e, us i ng D abbs as the br oker age f i r m . Si m m ons 1 ent er ed i nt o a r eal
- es t at e contr actw i th D r . A l f r edo and M r s . M ary R odr i guez ( “the R odr i gueze s ”) f

orthe pur chas e of

the home. ¶4. T he R odr i gueze s hi r ed D on W al kerw i th B ui l di ng I ns pect i on Ser vi ce t o i ns pectt he hom e, a nd W al kerc onduct ed an i ns pect i on on J une 8, 1999. W al kerpr epar ed an i ns pect i on r eporti n w hi ch he not ed a pos s i bl e f oundat i on pr obl em. B oth the R odr i gueze s and Si m m ons re c e iv e d a c o p y o f th e W a lk e r re p o rt. ¶5 . B eca us e t he W a l ke rr e po r tn ot e d a p os s i bl e f ou nd a t i on p r ob l e m, t he R odr i gueze s comm i s s i oned J err y L . J ones , P. E . , w i th A dvance d E ngi neer i ng R es our ces , I nc. , t o i ns pect the f oundat i on. J ones i nspecte d the f oundat i on on J ul y 13, 1999, and he pr epar ed aA l i ce Smi th w as t he dual agentfort he L yl es es and t he Fl et cher s . T he L yl es es and 2 the Fl et cher s s i gned a dua l
- agenc y conf i r m at i on on A ugus t8, 2000. 3 fo u n d a tio n in sp e c tio n re p o rt. Jo n e s fo u n d the sla b w a s n o t lev e l an d c o n c lu d e d “ [p ]os sib le
c a u se s o f th e d iffe re n c e in e lev a tio n c o u ld b e (1 ) d iffe re n tial se ttl e m e n t d u e to uncons ol i dat ed f

i l l ornatur al s oi l or( 2) the s tructur e could h ave been cons truct ed outof le v e l.” ¶ 6 . B e c a u se o f th e tw o in s p e c tio n re p o rts, th e R o d rig u e z e s d e c id e d to c a n c e l th e re a les t at e contr actw i th Si m m ons . T he R odr i gueze s c oul d notr emem berw hetherthei ragentor Si m m ons ’ s agentrecei ved a c opy of the tw o r eport s . L i kew i s e, Si m m ons coul d not
re m e m b e r if h e g a v e h is a g e n t a c o p y o f th e W a lk e r re p o rt. ¶7. A f

t erthe Rodr i gu e z e s c a nc e l l e d the r e a l
- e s t a t e c on tr a c t , the Lyl e s e s e ve ntua l l y bought the h o m e from S im m o n s. A t the ti m e o f pu rch ase , th e L y leses h ad “k n o w ledg e o f a rep o rt pr epar ed by D on W al ker ” and r equi r ed Si m m ons t o make mi norr epai r s t o the home bas ed
o n th e W a lk e r re p o rt. P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶8. T he Lyl es es deci ded t o s el l thei rhome and ent er ed i nt o a r eal
- es t at e contr actw i th the Fl et cher s on Sept ember16, 2000. A n e m pl oyee of D abbs a ct ed as dua l agentf orthe Lyl es es a n d the F letc h e rs. T h e rea l-e sta te c o n tra c t co n tain e d a p ro v isio n en title d “ P ro p e rty 2 C ondi t i ons , I ns pect i on a nd A cce pt ance of Pr operty. ” The pr ovi s i on pr ovi ded, i n rel evant part , the f

ol l ow i ng:4

S e ller a g re e s to d e liv e r to B u y e r th e p lu m b in g , h e a tin g , ele c trica l, air c o n d iti o n in g , all a p p lian c e s, a n d if o n e e x ists , th e sw im m in g p o o l, i ts e q u ip m e n t a n d a c c e s s o ri e s , in n o rm a l w o rk in g c o n d itio n , and the r oof w i th no l eaks , atthe t i m e of

cl os i ng. . . . Sel l erf

ur therm or e s peci f

i cal l y cove nant

s and r epr es ent

s thathe has no actualknow l edge of any de f ect s i n the condi t i on of pr oper t y o r o f th e a p p lian c e s a n d s y ste m s re fe rre d to a b o v e . S e ller a g re e s to pr ovi de a c om pl et ed Sel l er ’ s D i s cl os ur e St at em entt o B uyer . B uyerr es erves the righ t t o insp ec t pro p erty o r t o en g ag e a q u ali fi ed h o m e ins p ec tor o f B u y er’s c h o ic e . . . . (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶9. T he con t ractals o con t ai ned a provis i on en t i t l ed “T erm i t e I ns pect i on, ” and that pr ovi s i on pr ovi ded: S ell er a g ree s to fu rnish a lett er o r rep o rtfrom a . . . term it e c o n tr o l op era tor, s t at i ng thatthe pr operty i s f r ee f r om act i ve t erm i t e orotherw ood des tr oyi ng i ns ect s , and structur al i ns ecur i t i es ther ef r om . . . Sel l ers hal l have s uch tr eat ed and/ orr epai r ed i f

t erm i t es and/ ors tructur al i ns ecuri t i es . . . ar e f ound. T he co st of an y n ec essa ry treatm en t and /or rep airs . . . w il l be p aid b y S ell er. ¶10. T he contr actal so provided that“[ a] l l exp res s r epresent at i on s, w arr anti es and
covena nt s cont ai ned her ei n s ha l ls ur v i v e cl os i ng exce ptw her e her ei n s peci f i ed t o the
c o n tra ry . A ll o th e r c o n tra c tu a l o b lig a tio n s s h a ll te rm in a te w ith th e c lo sin g .” (E m p h a sis added) . E ach pa rty furtheragr eed that“[ n] ei therparty has r el i ed upon any s t at ementor r epr es ent at i ons m ade by the otherparty orthe s al es r epr es ent at i ve br i ngi ng the part i es t ogethernotco ntai ned her ei n. N ei therparty s hal l be bound by any t erm s , condi t i ons , or al
s ta te m e n ts , w a rr a n tie s , o r r e p re s e n ta tio n s a n d n o t h e re in c o n ta in e d .” ¶1 1 . P ri o r t o ex ec u ti n g th e rea l- estate co n tr ac t, th e L y leses p rov ided a sell er’s d iscl o su re s t at ementt o the Fl et cher s . U ndert he cat egory “St ructur al It ems, ” the Lyl es es r eport ed that th e y w e re n o t a w a re o f a n y p a s t f o u n d a tio n r e p a ir s , a n d n o r e p a ir s w e re “ c u rr e n tly n e e d e d .”5

T he Lyl es es al s o i ndi cat ed thatthey had ne verexper i ence d pr obl ems w i th the r oof . U nder a “M i s cel l aneous ” s ect i on of the di s cl os ur e st at ement , t he L yl es es not ed t hatthey w er e not aw are of any defect s or needed repai rs . ¶ 1 2 . Pu r s u a n tt o th e t e r ms o f th e r e a l
- e s t a t e c on t r a c t , t he Fl e t c h e r s e n g a g e d W i l l i a m E. B at es w i th A m er i Spec H om e I ns pect i on Ser vi ce t o i ns pectthe home. B at es i ns pect ed the hom e on Sept ember28, 2000, and the Fl et cher s re cei ved a copy of hi s r eporton Sept ember 29, 2000. R el evantt o thes e pr ocee di ngs , the r eportdi d notdi s cl os e any of the pr obl ems that the Fl et cher s as s erti n thei rcompl ai nt . T he F l et chers al s o i ns pect ed the pr operty on t hr ee s epar at e occ as i ons pr i ort o cl os i ng , an d t hey di d notdi s coverany pr obl ems of w hi ch they
now compl ai n. H ow ever , the Fl et cher s w er e t ol d the home had act i ve t erm i t es, and the p ro p e rty w a s tre a ted fo r su c h p rio r to c lo sin g . T h e F letc h e rs a lso re c e iv e d a ter m ite i ns pect i on r eportatcl osi ng ; the reportdi d notdi s cl os e any t erm i t e damage. T he cl os i ng occurr ed on O ct ober30, 2000. ¶1 3. A f

t er cl os i ng , the Fl e t c he r s a l l e ge the y di s c ov e r e d va r i ou s de f e c t s w i th the ho me, i ncl udi ng t erm i t e damage, “f oundat i on pr obl ems, r oof l eaks and f

l oo di ng of

the gar age. ” The Fl et cher s al s o di s cover ed thatthe pr operty s urr oundi ng thei rhom e coul d be i m pr oved, and they al l ege the Lyl es es ( thr ough agentA l i ce Smi th) r epr es ent ed the contr ary t o them. T he Fl et cher s f

i l ed s ui tagai ns tthe Lyl es es and D abbs on O ct ober29, 2003. ¶1 4. I n t hei r compl a i nt , the Fl e t c he r s a l l e ge the Lyl e s e s br e a c he d the c ov e na nt of good faith an d fair dea li n g an d the e x p ress te rm s o f th e re al-estate co n tr ac t. T h ey also asse rt cl ai m s of f

raudulenti nd ucem ent and fr aud / i ntent i on al m i sr epresent at i on againstthe L yles es.Sect i on 73- 35- 31( 2) pr ovi des that“any pe r s on, partner s hi p, as s oci at i on or 3 corpor at i on” thatr ece i ves “any s um of m oney, orthe equi val entther et o, as comm i s s i on, compensa t i on orpr of

i tby or i n conse quence of hi s vi ol at i on of any pr ovi s i on of thi s chapt er

. . . shal l al so be li able t o a p enalty o f notl ess than the am ou nt of the sum of m on ey so r ece i ved and notm or e than f our( 4) t i m es t he sum so r ece i ved, as m ay be de t erm i ned by the co u rt , w h ich p en alty m ay b e su ed fo r an d rec o v ere d b y a n y p erso n ag g ri ev ed . . . in an y co u rt o f co m p eten t j u ri sd ict ion . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 3 -35 -31 (2) (R ev . 2 0 0 8 ). 6 T h e F le tc h e r s f

u r th e ra ll e g e th e L y le s e s b r e a c h e d M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c ti o n 8 9
- 1
- 5 0 1 , e t s e q ., w h ich re q u ir es th e se ll er’s d iscl o su re s tat em en t. A s fo r claim s a g ains t D ab b s, the F let ch ers av er the b rok er is liab le for n eg li g en t no n d iscl o su re o f m aterial fac ts, b rea ch o f fi d u ciary dut i es , and br eac h of

the cove nantof

good f ai th and f

ai rdeal i ng. ¶1 5 . O n Jan u ary 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , the F let ch ers fi led a m o ti o n to am en d their co m p lai n t to as sert addi t i onal cl ai m s agai ns tthe Lyl es es and D abbs . T he Fl et cher s w ant ed t o add cl ai m s of
n eg li g en t m isr ep rese n tat ion an d n eg li g en t i n d u ce m en t aga inst th e L y lese s. T h e F let ch ers al s o w ant ed t o add tw o cl ai m s agai ns tD abbs : ( 1) br eac h of Sect i on 7 3-35-21 (1) ( a) of t he M i s s i s s i pp i Code , w hi c h p r oh i bi t s the r e a l
- e s t a t e a ge ntf r om “[ m] a ki ng a ny s ub s t a nt i al
m is re p re s e n ta tio n in c o n n e c tio n w ith a r e a l e s ta te tr a n s a c tio n ” ; a n d ( 2 ) b re a c h o f R u le IV .B .7 of the rul es a nd r egul at i ons of the M i s s i s s i ppi R eal E s t at e C om m i s s i on f orf ai l ur e t o keep the W al kerand engi neer i ng r epo rt s on f i l e f orthr ee ye ar s . Fur therm or e, the Fl et cher s w ant ed t o as s ertdamages agai ns tD abbs pur s uantt o Sect i on 73-35- 31( 2) of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. 3 ¶1 6. O n J ul y 7, 2 00 6, Dabb s f i l e d a mot i on f

ors um m ar y j udgm entas s er t i ng t hat t he L yl es es ’ cl ai m s w er e barr ed by t he t hr ee- yearst atut e of l i m i t at i ons setforth i n Sect i on 15- 1- 4 9 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e . D a b b s a rg u e d th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s fo r a ll cla im s b e g a n to7

run Sept ember16, 2000, the dat e the r eal
- es t at e contr actw as s i gned. A l t ernat i vel y, D abbs
ar gued thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons began t o run atthe l at es ton S eptem ber29, 2000, t he d a te th e F letc h e rs r e c e iv e d th e A m e riS p e c re p o rt. ¶17. T he L yl es es f

i l ed a j oi nder t o D abbs ’ s m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent . A ddi t i onal l y, the Lyl es es ar gued the al l eged br eac h r egar di ng the s el l er ’ s di s cl os ur e st at em entacc rued A ug ust8, 20 00 , the d at e t he F l et chers r ecei ved the d i scl osure st at em ent. T he L yles es al so a ss e rt th a t th e c laim s fo r fra u d u le n t a n d /o r n e g lig e n t in d u c e m e n t to e n ter th e re a l-e sta te contr actacc rued on the exe cut i on dat e of the contr act , Sept ember16, 2000. B eca us e the F let ch ers fil ed their co m p lai n t on O ctob er 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , the L y leses a rgu e tha t al l cl aim s are t i m e- barr ed. I n re s pons e, t he Fl et cher s ass ertt hatt he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons began t o run on the cl os i ng dat e, O ct ober30, 2000. ¶1 8 . T h e tri al co u rt d en ied th e F let ch ers’ m o ti o n to am en d du e t o futi li ty. T h e tri al co u rt f ound thatas a mat t erof

l aw the “pl ai nt i f

f s coul d nothave be en negl i gent l y i nduced t o ent er i nt o the Sept ember16, 2000 Pur chas e C ontr actby the L yl es . ” T he tr i al courtal s o f ound t hat
as a mat t erof

l aw , D abbs w as notr equi r ed t o keep the W al kerand engi neer i ng r eport s , and ther ef or e, coul d nothave vi ol at ed Sect i on 73- 35- 21 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. ¶ 1 9 . T h e tri a l co u rt ru led th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s a c c ru e d o n th e e x e c u tio n d a te o f th e re a le s ta te c o n tra c t o r th e d a te th e F letc h e rs r e c e iv e d th e ir in d e p e n d e n t in sp e c tio n re p o rt. A cc o rdin g ly, th e tri al co u rtd eterm ined all claim s w ere ti m e-b arred a n d g ran ted s u m m aryT hi s C our tnot es thatthe mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entcont ai ns ar gum ent s r el at i ng 4 t o the mer i t s of

the Fl et cher s ’ cl ai m s . H ow ever , the tr i al courtgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm ent s ol el y on the s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons i s s ue. I n thi s opi ni on, w e addr es s onl y the s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s, no tthe m eri t s of any o f the clai m s ass ert ed b y the Flet chers. T h is st atem en t i s relev an t t o the C o u rt ’s de term in a tion o f w h ethe r th e F let ch ers 5 t i m el y appea l ed the or derdenyi ng thei rm ot i on t o amend, w hi ch w i l l be di s cus s ed i n I s s ue I I of thi s opi ni on. 8 ju d g m e n t to th e L y les e s a n d D a b b s. T h e re a fte r, th e F letc h e rs tim e ly fil e d a n o tice o f a p p e a l. 4 T h e F le tc h e rs a p p e a le d “ th e fi n a l ju d g m e n t e n te re d in th is c a s e o n A p ri l 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 .” 5 DI S CU S S I ON I . W he t he r t he Tri alC our t Err e d i n H ol di ng That t he St at ut e of Li m i t at i ons B arred the F l etchers’ C l aim s. ¶ 2 0 . T h is C o u rt a p p lie s a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w to th e s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . E l lis v. A nders on Tull

y Co. , 7 2 7 S o . 2 d 7 1 6 , 7 1 8 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 8 ) . F u r th e r mo r e , “ [ t ] h i s Co u r tr e v i e ws gr ant s of s um m ary j udgm entundert he de novo st andar d. ” B u l lard v. G u ardian L i

fe I n s. Co . o f A m. , 941 So. 2d 812, 814 ( M i s s . 2006) . Pur s uantt o R ul e 56 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C ivil P roced ure, sum m ary j ud gm ent “s hall be rend ered f orthw i th if

the p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, an sw ers t o int err og at ori es and a dm i ssi on s on fi l e, t og et her w i th the af fi dav i t s, if a n y , sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n y m a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rty i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g me n ta s a mat t e rof l a w. ” M i s s . R. C i v. P. 56( c) . T he courtvi ew s t he
e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . U ni v. of Mis s . Med. Ctr. v. Eas te r ling , 928 S o. 2d 815, 817 ( M i s s . 2006) . “The m ovi ng party bear s the bur den of demonstr at i ng ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

act . ” I d.9

¶21. T her e i s no di s put e thatthe appl i cabl e st atut e of l i m i t at i ons fort he cl ai m s as s ert ed by th e F le tc h e rs is th re e y e a rs p u rs u a n t to S e c tio n 1 5 -1 -4 9 o f t h e M is s is s ip p i C o d e . See a l so CitiFinanci al

Mor t gage Co. v. W

as hington , 967 So. 2d 16, 17 ( M i s s . 2007) ( rul i ng t hr eeyears t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o br eac h of f i duci ary dut y, bre ach of i m pl i ed cove nantof g o o d fa ith an d fair dea li n g , frau d u lent m isr ep rese n tatio n , an d b re a c h o f c o n tra c t); Sanders on Farm s, I n c. ( P rod. D iv.) v. B a l

lard , 917 So. 2d 783, 789 ( M i s s . 2005) ( rul i ng thr ee- year s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i es t o c l ai m s of f r aud and f

r audul enti nducement ) . Sect i on 15- 1- 4 9 (1 ) p ro v id e s, in p a rt, th a t: (1) A l l act i ons f

orw hi ch no otherper i od of l i m i t at i on i s pr es cr i bed s hal l be comm ence d w i thi n thr ee ( 3) year s nexta f t erthe ca us e of

s uch ac t i on accr ued , a n d n o t a ft e r. ( 2) In ac t i ons forw hi ch no ot herper i od of l i m i t at i on i s pre s cr i bed and w hi ch in v o lv e late n t in

ju ry o r d is e a se , the c a u se o f a c tio n d o e s n o t accr ue unt i l the pl ai nt i f f has di s cover ed, orby r eas onabl e di l i gence s houl d have di s cover ed, the i nj ury. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 5 -1 -4 9 (1 ),( 2 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶22. T he narr ow ques t i on pr es ent ed by thi s cas e i s w hen di d the Fl et cher s ’ caus es of act i on acc rue. W hi l e var i ous f r aud, s t atut ory, bre ach- of
- contr act , and t or tcl ai m s ar e r ai s ed by the Fl et cher s, they a l l ari s e outof the negot i at i ons f

orthe pur chas e of

thi s hom e, the r es ul t i ng contr actt o sel l , and t he acc om panyi ng sel l er ’ s di s cl os ur e s t at ement , al l of w hi ch cul m i nat ed in a s ale o f th is r esid en ce to th e F letch ers c o m p let ed o n O ctob er 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 . T h is C o u rt pr evi ous l y has s t at ed thata r eal
- es t at e contr act“cont empl at e[ s ] a cons um m at i on vi a another excha nge of

document s some w eeks i n t he f utur e and [ i s ] i n t hi s sens e a contr actt o m ake a cont r act . ” L e a c h v. T

in g le , 586 So. 2d 799, 802 ( M i s s . 1991) . T hes e as s ert ed ca us es of10

a c tio n in v o lv e a c ts w h ich w e re c o n tin u in g u p to a n d th ro u g h th e c o n su m m a tio n o f th is re a les t at e t r ans act i on. In c o n sid e rin g th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s in th e c o n tex t o f a re a l-e sta te tr ans act i on i n w hi ch the buyercl ai m ed the s el l erhad made f al s e r epr es ent at i ons r egar di ng th e lan d so ld , this C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “th e p u rc h a se r’s rig h t o f a c tio n fo r su c h d e c e it accr ues upon t he c o m

p letio n o

f th e sa le ind u ce d b y su ch false rep rese n tat ion , o r up on the
cons um m at i on of

the f r aud . ” D unn v. D e nt , 169 M i s s . 574, 153 So. 798 ( 1934) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). ¶2 3. T hi s C our thas he l d tha tf orpu rpo s e s of

a s t a tut e of

l i mi t a t i on s , a c a us e of act i on accr ues “‘ w hen i tcomes i nt o exi s t ence as an enf or cea bl e cl ai m , thati s , w hen the r i ghtt o s ue b ec o m es v ested . ’” B u l la r d v. Gu a r dia n L i

f e I n s . Co . o f A m. , 94 1 S o. 2d 81 2, 81 5 (M i ss. 2006) ( quot i ng For m an v. Mis s . P ublis hers Cor p. , 1 4 S o . 2 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 6 (1 9 4 3 )) . F u r th e r , we hav e held that a s t atute of l i m i t at i on s “begins t o run w hen all the el em ents of a t ort , or cause of a ct i on, a r e pr es ent . ” Caves v. Y arbr ough , 2008 M i s s . L E X I S 617, at*12 ( M i s s . Sept . 25, 2 0 0 8 ). W h ile th e re a re v a rio u s e lem e n ts to th e se p a ra te c la im s m a d e in th is c a se , the y a ll
r equi r e the comm on el emento f dam ages. T he Fl et cher s w er e w i thoutany ca us e of act i on unt i l they s uf

f er ed damages . T he r ecor d i s devoi d of any pr oo f t hatthe Fl et cher s s uf f er ed actual damages pr i ort o the dat e of c l os i ng w hen they pur chas ed the hom e. “I n the abs ence of dam age, no l i t i gabl e eve ntar os e. ” Gu a r dia n L i f e I n s . Co . o f A m. , 9 41 So . 2d a t815. W i thoutdama ges, t he Fl et cher s w oul d nothave ha d a vi abl e ca us e of act i on agai ns tei ther the Lyl es es orD abbs i f

sui thad been f

i l ed af t ert he exec ut i on dat e of the r eal
- es t at e contr act ( the dat e Lyl es es and D abbs as s ertthe ca us es of act i on acc rued) , butpr i ort o cl os i ng.11

¶2 4. I n an a l yz i ng a s t a tut e - of
- l i mi t a t i on s i s s ue un de r Se c t i on 15
- 1- 49 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode, thi s C our thas hel d that“the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons comm ence s upon di s covery of an i nj ury, and di s covery i s an i s s ue of f actt o be d eci ded by a j ury w hen ther e i s a genui ne di s put e. ” D ona ld v. AM O CO Pr od. C o. , 7 35 S o. 2d 161, 167 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W hethert he Fl et cher s knew ors houl d have k now n of the al l eged de f

ect s or m isre p re se n tatio n s p rio r to clo sin g is a d isp u ted q u e stio n o f fa c t. V iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e l i g h tmo s tf

a v o r a b l e t o th e F l e t c h e r s , a s we mu s tf o rs u mma ry j u d g me n tp u rp o s e s , we f i nd the tr i al courterr ed i n f i ndi ng as a mat t erof

l aw thatthe s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons acc rued pr i ort o the dat e of

cl os i ng. II. W h ether t h e T ri al C ou rt A b u sed It s D i scret i on I n D en ying th e F l etchers’ M ot i on To A m e nd. ¶ 2 5 . D a b b s a rg u e s th is is su e is n o t p ro p e rly b e fo re th e C o u rt, a s th e n o tic e o f a p p e a l d id
no tcontai n any r efer ence t o the order den ying the m oti on t o am end . H ow ever, the F l et chers’
s t at ementof

i s s ues and appe l l antbr i ef cl ear l y show they ar e appea l i ng t he or derdenyi ng t he
m o tio n to a m e n d . See K . D. F . v. J . L . H. , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 1 , 9 7 4 n .2 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ) (fin d in g b a sis of appeal clearfr om s t at ementof i s s ues and appe l l antbr i ef ) . U nderR ul e 3( c) of t he M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re , “ [a]n a p p e a l sh a ll n o t b e d ism iss e d fo r in fo rm a lity of f or m ort i t l e of

the not i ce of

appea l . ” M i s s . R . A pp. P. 3( c) . T her ef or e, w e cons i derthe
m er i t s of thi s i s s ue. ¶26. T hi s C our tconsi der s a deni al of amendm entunderan abuse
- of
- di s cr et i on s t andar d. Moel lerv. A m . G uar. & L iab. I ns. Co. , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d 9 5 3 , 9 6 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ). P u rsu a n t to R u le12

15 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, a “ party may am end a pl eadi ng as a mat t er of cour s e atany t i m e bef or e a r es pons i ve pl eading i s ser ved . . . . O therw i s e a pa r ty m ay a m e n d a p lea d in g o n ly b y le a v e o f c o u rt o r u p o n w ritten c o n se n t o f th e a d v e rse p a rty ; l eave s hal lbe f

r eel y gi ven w h en justi ce so req u ir es.” M iss. R . C iv. P. 15 (a) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T hi s C our thas s t at ed “l eave s hal l be f r eel y gi ven” w hen: [ T ] he under l ying fact s orci r cumst ance s r el i ed upon by a pl ai nt i f f m ay be a p ro p e r su b

jec t o f re lief, h e o u g h t to b e a ffo rd e d a n o p p o rtu n ity to te st h is c laim on the meri t s . I n the abs ence of any appa r entordecl ar ed r eas on–s uch as undue del ay, bad f

ai th ordi l at ory mot i ve on the partof the movant , r epea t ed f ai l ur e t o cur e def

i ci enci es by amendm ent s pr evi ous l y al l ow ed, undue p re ju d ice to th e o p p o sin g p a rty b y v irtu e o f a llo w a n c e o f th e a m e n d m e n t, f ut i l i ty of the amendm ent , et c. –the l eave soughts houl d, as the rul es r equi r e, b e “ fr e e ly g iv e n .” A m . G uar. & L iab. I

ns. Co. , 812 So. 2d at962. ¶27. B ef

or e the t r i al cour t , D abbs and t he L yl es es ar gued t he addi t i onal cl ai m s w er e barr ed by the st atut e of

l i m i t at i ons . N ei therdef endantas s ert ed any pr ej udi ce, and the addi t i onal
c laim s c lea rly re late to th e fa c ts a n d a v e rm e n ts in th e o rig in a l co m p lain t. H o w e v e r, th is C our tm us tc ons i derw hetherthe pot ent i al c l ai m s a r e the “pr opers ubj ectof r el i ef ” or“f ut i l e”
a s th e tr ia l c o u rt fo u n d . See id. ¶ 2 8 . T h e tria l ju d g e fo u n d a s a m a tter o f la w th a t if th e L y l e s e s h a d k n o wl e d g e o f th e t wo in sp e c tio n re p o rts, the n su c h k n o w led g e w o u ld su p p o rt o n ly a c laim o f fra u d . A s a llu d e d to by the tr i al court , the ext entof the Lyl es es ’ know l edge i s a mat er i al f acti n di s put e. T he
r ecor d di s cl os es onl y thatthe Lyl es es s aw the W al kerr eport , and the r eportonl y m ent i oned a pos s i bl e f

oun dat i on pr obl em. A ddi t i onal l y, the engi neer i ng r eportdi s cl os ed onl y anI n the o r de rd e ny i ng mot i on t o a mend c ompl a i nt , the tr i a l c ou r tn ot e d “[ t ] he 6 Pl ai nt i ff s’ propo sed am end ed co m plai nt al so seeks t o ad d a st atutory clai m agains tD ef endant K e lly D a b b s R e a lty , In c . (“D a b b s” ) fo r v io latio n o f M iss . C o d e A n n . § 7 3 -3 5 -2 1 , alle g e d ly r el at ed t o t he pr opos ed r eal est at e t r ans act i on bet w een K enneth Si m m ons , the ow nerof the B ri d g e W a te r D ri v e P ro p e rt y p ri o r t o L y le s , a n d A lf re d o a n d M a ry R o d ri g u e z .” 13 u n e v e n sla b , w h e re a s th e F letc h e rs h a v e a ss e rte d n u m e ro u s o th e r d e fe c ts in th e ir c o m p lain t,
w hi ch w er e notaddr es s ed by t he engi neer i ng re por t . F ur therm or e, the Lyl es es have ne ver admi t t ed thatthey had know l edge of the def ect s w hi ch the Fl et cher s di s cover ed. ¶ 2 9 . T h is C o u rt h a s sta ted “ ‘[t] h e b a sis fo r d a m a g e s fr o m n e g lig e n t m isre p re se n tatio n is the lac k o f ca re; th e b asis for d am ag es re su lt ing from frau d is th e w a n t of h o n esty . ’” Stone c i phe rv. Kor nhaus , 623 So. 2d 955, 964 ( M i s s . 1993) ( quot i ng Firs t Money, Inc. v. Fr is by , 369 So. 2d 746, 750 ( M i s s . 1979)) . W e f i nd i tw as an abuse of di s cr et i on f orthe tr i al
courtt o det erm i ne thatas a mat t erof l aw ( es pecial l y duri ng the di s covery phas e) , t he F let ch ers c o u ld n o t hav e p rov en b y a p rep o n d era n ce o f ev iden ce a “ lack o f ca re” o n the p art o f t h e L y le s e s . I

d . T he Lyl es es ’ al l eged know l edge of thes e tw o r eport s does notof
n ec essity pre clud e a claim of ne g li g en ce . T h is C o u rtfi n d s th e tr ial co u rtab u se d its di s cr et i on i n denyi ng t he Fl et cher s ’ m ot i on t o amend t o i nclude the addi t i onal cl ai m s of negl i genti nducementand negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on. ¶30. T hi s C our tm us tal s o det erm i ne w hetherthe tr i al c our ta bus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng the Fl et cher s l eave t o amend t o as s erta ca us e of act i on for the al l eged vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 73-35- 21( 1) ( a) and R ul e I V . B . 7 of the rul es and r egul at i ons of t he M i s s i s s i ppi R eal Est at e C om m i s s i on. Sect i on 73- 35- 21( 1) ( a) pr ohi bi t s a r eal
- es t at e age nt 614

fro m “ [m ]ak in g a n y s u b s tan tial m isre p re se n tatio n in c o n n e c tio n w ith a re a l es tate tr ans act i on. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 73- 35- 21( 1) ( a) . U nderR ul e I V . B . 7, “[ a] r eal es t at e br oker
m ustkeep on fi l e forthree years f oll ow i ng i t s cons um m at i on , co m p lete re c o rd s re latin g to
an y rea l est ate tran sac ti o n . ” M . R . E . C . R u le IV . B . 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶31. T he tr i al courtf

ound the “Si m m ons / R odr i guez s al e w as notc om pl et ed and, ther ef or e, w a s n e v e r c o n su m m a ted ,” a n d a s su c h , “ D a b b s w a s n o t re q u ire d to m a in tain a n y d o c u m e n ts and coul d notbe f

ound t o have vi ol at ed M i s s . C ode A nn. § 73- 35- 21 as a mat t erof l aw . ” T he tr i al courtf

ur therf ound t hatany amendm entw ou l d be f ut i l e bas ed on the f

actthat Si m m ons and the R od r i gueze s nevercons um m at ed thei rr eal
- es t at e tr ans act i on by cl os i ng on the home. W e ca nnots ay thatthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng the mot i on t o amend t o add cl ai m s underSect i on 73- 35- 21 and R ul e I V . B . 7. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 3 2 . T h e trial c o u rt e rre d in fin d in g a s a m a tter o f law th a t th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s fo r a ll cl ai m s acc rued pr i ort o the dat e of c l os i ng. Fur therm or e, the tr i al c our ta bus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n d eny i ng t he F l et chers l eave to am end theircom plai nt t o asser tcl ai m s of negl i gen ce aga i nst the Lyl es es . W e af

f i r m the tr i al court ’ s denyi ng the Fl et cher s l eave t o am end t o add a vi ol at i on of

M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 73- 35- 21 a nd Rul e I V . B . 7 of the rul es and r egul at i ons of the M i s s i s s i ppi R eal E s t at e C om m i ssi on . T hi s C our tr ever s es the tr i al courti n al l ot her
re sp e c ts a n d re m a n d s th is c a se to th e tria l c o u rt fo r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on. ¶ 3 3 . AFF I RM ED I N PART; REVERSED AND REM AND ED I N PART.15

W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N , P. J. , D I C K I N SO N , R A N D O LP H , K I TC H EN S, CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY .