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 1 5 1 1 - S CT W . E. W H I TE v. GLENN COOKE, DENNI SM AS S EY AND S TEV

E W EEKS D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 03/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . M I TCHE LL M . LUNDY, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: TAT E COUNTY CHANCERY COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : J AM E S W . AM OS ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : DAV I D M . S LOCUM , J R. J O H N T . L A M A R , J R . 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 N D E R E D I N PA R T - 01/ 15/ 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. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. W i l l i am E ar l W hi t e att ended a publ i c aucti on at w hich he s ucce s s f ul l y bi d f

orand contr act ed t o pur chas e f ourtr act s of

l and fr om G l enn C ooke, D enni s M as s ey, and St eve W eeks ( her ei naf

t erc ol l ect i vel y r ef

err ed t o a s “ C ooke”) . Pr i ort o c l os i ng, a s ur vey r evea l ed thatthe dr i vew ay on a s epar at e pr operty ow ned by Cooke actual l y ext ended ont o one of the tra c ts th a t W h ite h a d c o n tra c ted to p u rc h a se . A fte r ef fo rts to rea c h a c o m p ro m ise w ith W h ite pr oved unpr oduct i ve, C oo ke sold this separat e prope rty to R ob ert a Jam i son-R os s and gr ant ed2

heran ea s ementacr os s W hi t e’ s tr act . A s a r es ul t , W hi t e f i l ed s ui tf

ors peci f i c per f or m ance of the r eal - es t at e contr act w i t ho ut the bur den of an ea s ement . T he cha ncel l ordi s m i s s ed W hit e’s co m plai nt. W e aff i rm the ch ancell or’ s denial of speci fi c perf orm ance, butrever se a n d re n d e r t h e a w a rd o f a tto rn e y fe e s to C o o k e .

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 2 . O n Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 4 , Jo h n R o e b u c k a n d A ss o c iate s, In c . (JR A ) h e ld a p u b lic a u c tio n to se ll a p p ro x im a tely 2 3 5 ac re s in S e n a to b ia, M iss iss ip p i. W ill iam E a rl W h ite s u c c e ss fu lly b id on f ouradj ace nttr act s ow ned by C ooke. T hats ame day, W hi t e exec ut ed a r eal - es t at e s al es contr actf

orthes e f

ourtr act s a nd pa i d the buyer ’ s pr emi um of $13, 674. T he con t rac t des cr i bed the pr operty as “[ t ] r act ( s ) 6, 7, 8, & 9 of the f arm l and l ocat ed i n [ s i c] nor th of M a g n o lia L a n e , S e n a to b ia , T a te C o u n ty , M is s is s ip p i,” c o n s is tin g o f a b o u t 1 7 8 .7 5 a c re s . ¶3. T he auc t i on br ochur e cont ai ned a vi s ual depi ct i on of tr act s s i x, s even, ei ght , and ni ne. B egi nni ng w i th tr acts i x, thes e pr opert i es run cons ecut i vel y f r om w es tt o eas tand l i e s i de- bysid e . T h e b ro c h u re als o sh o w e d tw o sm a ller p ro p e rties , trac ts te n a n d e lev e n , loc a ted w ith in the s outhernm os tpa r tof tr acte i ght . T r act s s even, ei ght , and ni ne w er e s how n as havi ng at l ea s t30 0 f

e e tof f r on t a ge , w i th tr a c tni ne ha vi ng a na rr ow f orty- f e e t - w i de s tr i p o f

f r on t age on i t s s ou the a s tp ort i on . The wes t e rn e dg e o f thi s s tr i p bo r de r e d a d r i ve w a y on t r actt en. T hi s dri vew ay l ed di r ect l y f r om M agnol i a D r i ve t o the home on t r actt en, and af f or ded a m e a n s o f i n g re s s a n d e g re s s fo r t h e h o m e o n tr a c t e le v e n , a s w e ll. ¶4. T he contr act s t at ed that the f i nal pr i ce w oul d “be det erm i ned by the actual s ur veyed a c re a g e tim e s th e p ric e p e r a c re ,” a n d th a t ti tle w o u ld b e c o n v e y e d su b jec t to a ll ea se m e n ts of r ecor d. Par agr aph f

i ve pr ovi ded that“ [ a] tcl os i ng, s ett l ementand paymentof the bal anceP a ra g ra p h n in e sp e c ifica lly sta ted th a t: 1 T he pr operty SH A L L B E C O N V E Y E D A N D A C C E P T E D i n “A s i s ” condi t i on. E x ce p t as ex p ressly se t f o rth in this C O N T R A C T , n eith er S ell er, no r S ell er’s agent , norJ R A , has orw i l l m ake any w arr ant i es orr epr es ent at i ons of any ki nd orchar act er , expr es s ed ori m pl i ed, w i th r es pectt o the Pr operty, i ncl udi ng, wi th o u tl i mi t a t i o n , a n y wa r r a n t y o rr e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o th e HAB I T AB I L I T Y, D E S I GN, QUAL I T Y , M ERC HAN TABI L I T Y , CO NDI T I ON, E N V I R O N M E N T A L STA T U S, M A T T E R S O F SU R V E Y O R FI T N E S S for any part i cul arpurpos e, al l o f w hi ch ar e expr es s l y di s cl ai m ed. E xceptf orthe w a rra n ties a n d re p re se n tatio n s e x p re ss ly se t fo rth in th is C o n tra c t, B u y e r is r el yi ng s ol el y on i t s ow n e xpert i s e and i nf or m at i on. B uyerhas conduct ed s uch i nves t i gat i ons and i ns pect i ons of the Pr op erty as i tdeemed nece s s ary and/ or appr opr i at e and s hal l r el y upon the s ame. 3 of the pur chas e pr i ce s hal l be made . . . upon pr es ent at i on of the W arr anty D eed w i th us ual covena nt s and conve yi ng a good and mer chant abl e t i t l e. ” A tthe s ame t i m e, par agr aph ni ne a d d e d th a t t h e p ro p e rt y “ S H A L L B E C O N V E Y E D A N D A C C E P T E D in ‘A s is ’ c o n d itio n ,” w i th no w arr ant i es orr epr es ent at i ons of any ki nd otherthan t hos e expr es s l y s t at ed i n the c on tr a c t . The a uc t i on br oc hu r e l i ke w i s e s t a t e d tha ta l l pr oper t i es w oul d b e s ol d “ ‘ A S I S,

1 W HER E I S, W I TH A LL FAULTS’ W I THO UT R EPRES ENTA TI ON O R W AR RA NTY O F A N Y K I N D , ” and subj ectt o ri ght - of - w ay eas ement s of r ecor d. A ddi t i onal l y, the auc t i on cat al og i ncl uded an “ A s I s / W her e I s ” di s cl ai m er , and not ed thatthe tr act s w oul d be s ur veyed p ri o r t o clos ing . C losing w as se t t o o cc u r w ith in thirty d ay s at th e o ffi ce s o f att o rne y B arry B r i dgf or th. ¶5. F oll ow i ng ex ecuti on o f t he con t ract , Jam es W ages c on du ct ed a s ur vey and f ound s om e di s cr epanc y betw een the auc t i on br ochur e and the actual l ayoutof the pr opert i es . T he dr i vew ay, w hi ch t he br ochur e pl ace d sol el y on tr actt en, actual l y ext ended ont o the di s put ed s tr i p of f r ont age on tr actni ne. U pon thi s di s covery, W ages cont act ed C ooke and e xpl ai nedT he part i es di s put e how orw hy the s econd s ur vey w as r ej ect ed. C ooke as s ert s t hat 2 W hi t e i ni t i al l y a gr eed t o the excha nge, butc hanged hi s mi nd da ys l at er . W hi t e, on the other hand, cont ends thathe neve rs aw t he s econd sur vey an d neverhad the cha nce t o acc eptor re je c t it. W h ite c la im s th a t h e w a s s im p ly to ld th a t th e s e c o n d s u rv e y h a d b e e n re je c te d . 4 thatthe pr opert i es could notbe di vi ded ac cor di ng t o the r epr es ent at i on i n the br ochur e. C o o k e d ir e c te d W a g e s to m e e t w ith W h ite a n d d is c u s s a p o te n tia l c o m p ro m is e . ¶6 . W ages propos ed t ha tW hi t e c ou l d e i the r( 1) r e t a i n the di s pu t e d s tr i p s ub j e c tt o an eas ementf

orthe bene f

i tof tr actt en, or( 2) excha nge the di s put ed str i p f oran equa l amount of f r ont age t o the w es t . W hi t e i ni t i al l y agr eed t o s urr end er t he di s put ed s tr i p f oran equa l a m o u n t o f f

ro n tag e to th e w e st. W a g e s th e n d ra fte d a se c o n d su rv e y th a t allo tted W h ite h is f ul l 300 f eetof f r ont age t o the w es t . W ages , how ever , l at erre cei ved not i ce thatthe part i es co u ld n o t agre e o n the s ec o n d su rve y . T h ere after, C o o k e ins tru cted W ag es to p rep are a third 2 su rve y as c lose as p o ssible to the b roc h u re’s d esc ri p ti o n . A cc o rdin g ly, W ag es d rafted a thir d s ur vey w hi ch gave W hi t e the di s put ed s tr i p s ubj ectt o a n e as ementf orthe bene f

i tof tr actt en. ¶ 7 . A m id th is b a c k -a n d -fo rth b e tw e e n W h ite, C o o k e , a n d W a g e s , C o o k e c o n tr a c te d to se ll tr act s te n and el even t o R obert a J ami s on- R os s . R os s pur chas ed tr actel even, w hi ch compri s es one and a hal f acr es and i ncl udes a home, f or$55, 000. C ooke f

i nance d the l oan f orR os s t o pur chas e thi s pr operty, and then as s i gned the dee d of trus tt o Senat obi a B ank, now know n as Sycamore B ank. T he dee d t o tr actel even w as s i gned on J ul y 20, 2004, and recor ded on O ct ob er 12, 20 04 . T ractt en co m pri ses three and a half acres , an d incl ud es a hom e i n w hi ch R os s now l i ves . T hi s part i cul artr acts ol d f or$225, 000, and w as fi nance d by W el l s Far go B ank, N . A . T he dee d t o tr actt en w as exec ut ed on Sept ember20, 2004, andW h it e fi led a n am en d ed co m p lai n t o n S ep tem b er 15 , 20 0 6 , joining R o ss, Sy ca m o re 3 B a n k , a n d W e lls F a rg o B a n k , N .A ., a s d e fe n d a n ts . W e lls F a rg o w a s la te r d is m is s e d . 5 r ecor ded on Sept ember27, 2004. A n es s ent i al componentof thes e pur chas es w as C ooke g ra n tin g R o s s a n e a s e m e n t a c ro s s th e d is p u te d s tr ip o n tr a c t n in e . ¶8. O n S ept ember20, 2004, af t erl earni ng of R oss ’ s eas ement , W hi t e f i l ed a compl ai nt f ors peci f i c per f orm ance of

the r eal - es t at e contr actand a l is pend ens n o tice in th e T a te C ounty C hance r y C our t . W hi t e as s ert ed thathe w as e nt i t l ed t o s peci f i c per f or m ance of

the contr actin accor dance w i th the r epr es ent at i ons i n the auc t i on br ochur e, w hi ch s how ed no e a se m e n ts. C o o k e filed a n a n sw e r a n d c o u n ter c la im c o n te n d in g th a t th e y w e re e n tit led to s peci f i c per f or m ance of

the contr acts ubj ectt o an ea s ementon tr actni ne. J R A pai d t o t he c o u rt th e $ 1 3 ,6 7 4 b u y e r’s p re m iu m a n d su b se q u e n tly w a s d isc h a rg e d fro m th e su it. 3 ¶9. O n J ul y 3, 2007, f ol l ow i ng a t ri al , t he ch ancell or i ssued an op i nion and or der di s m i s s i ng W hi t e’ s compl ai ntand C ooke’ s count er cl ai m . T he cha ncel l orf ur thercanc el ed and rel eased W hit e’s l is pend ens n o tice . H e o rd e re d W h ite to p a y C o o k e ’s a tto rn e y fe e s in the s um of

$7, 730. 89. T he cha ncel l orent er ed an a m ended or deron J ul y 18, 2007, cl ar i f yi ng thatC ooke’ s at t orney f

ees w er e t o be pai d fr om the i nt erpl eade rf unds , and thatal l r emai ni ng i nt erpl eade rf

unds w er e t o be pai d t o W hi t e. W hi t e f i l ed a mot i on f

ornew t ri al , w hi ch the c h a n c e llo r d e n ie d in a n o rd e r d a te d A u g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 . ¶10. W hi t e now appeal s t o t hi s C our tra i s i ng si x ass i gnm ent s of err or : ( 1) the cha ncel l or err ed i n concl udi ng thatthe contr actaf f or ded C ooke an “es cape c l aus e”; ( 2) the cha ncel l or e rre d in fin d in g th a t i t w a s “ fa ir a n d re a so n a b le” fo r C o o k e to se ll tra c ts te n a n d e lev e n to R os s ; ( 3) C ooke f

ai l ed t o acti n good fai th; ( 4) the cha ncel l orerr ed i n f i ndi ng thatC ooke6

coul d notconvey the di s put ed s tr i p as s how n i n the auc t i on br ochur e; ( 5) the cha ncel l orerr ed i n concl udi ng thats peci f i c per f or m ance coul d notbe gr ant ed bec aus e cl os i ng di d nott ake p la c e w ith in th ir ty d a y s ; a n d (6 ) t h e c h a n c e llo r e rr e d in a w a rd in g a tto rn e y fe e s to C o o k e . ¶11. W e cons ol i dat e thes e s i x as s i gn m ents o f er rorint o t he fol l ow i ng tw o i s s ues : ( 1) w h e th e r th e c h a n c e llo r e rr e d in d e n y in g W h ite s p e c ific p e rfo rm a n c e o f th e re a l-e sta te contr actw i thoutan eas ementon tr actni ne, and ( 2) w hetherthe cha ncel l orerr ed i n aw ar di ng a tto rn e y fe e s to C o o k e . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶12. T hi s C our t “w i l l not di s turb the f actual f i ndi ngs of a chanc el l or w hen s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence unl es s [ w e] can s ay w i th re as onabl e cert ai nty thatthe cha ncel l orabus ed hi s di s cr et i on, w as m ani f es t l y w r ong, cl ear l y err oneous orappl i ed an e rr oneous l egal s t andar d. ” B i

glane v. U

nderthe H

il l Cor p. , 949 S o. 2 d 9, 13- 14 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng C um m ings v. B enderm an , 6 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 7 , 1 0 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 )) . DI S CU S S I ON I. W h e th e r th e c h a n c e llo r e r r e d in d e n y in g W h ite sp e c ific p e r fo r m a n c e o f th e r e a les t at e cont ract w i t hout an eas em ent on t ract ni ne. ¶13. W hi t e ar gues thatthe r eal - es t at e contr actcl ear l y i ndi cat ed thatthe pr opert i es w er e not bur dened by an eas ement , a nd ther ef or e, he i s e nt i t l ed t o s peci f i c per f or m ance of

the contr act w i thoutthe ea s ementon tr actni ne. H e s ubm i t s thata va l i d, enf or cea bl e contr actexi s t s , and thatC ooke mustconvey the pr operty a s s how n i n the auct i on br ochur e. H e ac know l edges that the d ri vew ay o n tr actt en ex t end s onto tractnine, bu ti nsi st s that he i s enti t l ed t o sol e use of thi s dr i vew ay and thatR os s has s uf f i ci entf r ont age w i thoutthe ea s ement . H e ar gues that7

C ooke ac t ed i n bad f

ai th by pl aci ng t hei row n fi nanci al i nt er es t s ahead of W hi t e’ s contr actual ri g h ts in g ra n tin g R o s s th e e a s e m e n t a n d tr y in g to fo rc e h im to a c c e p t th is c o n d itio n . ¶14. For s peci f

i c per f or m ance t o be gr ant ed, a contr act m us t be r eas onabl y compl et e and re a s o n a b ly d e fi n it e o n m a te ri a l te rm s . L e a c h v. T in g le , 586 So. 2d 799, 802 ( M i s s . 1991) ( ci t i ng D uke v. W

hatley , 5 8 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 2 -7 4 , (M iss . 1 9 9 1 )). “ A co n tra c t is s a id to e n jo y th e lev e l o f sp e c ificity p re d ica te to e n fo rc e a b ili ty : if it co n tain s m a tter w h ich w ill enabl e the courtu nd erpr operrul es of cons truct i on t o as cert ai n i t s t erm s , i ncl udi ng c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e g e n e ra l c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e p a rties a n d if n e c e ss a ry re lev a n t ex trin sic evi dence . ” L each , 58 6 So . 2d a t80 2 ( qu ot i ng D u ke , 580 So. 2d at1274) . I f the contr act d o e s n o t p a ss th is te st o f sp e c ificity , itsh o u ld b e re n d e re d u n e n fo rc e a b le, a n d sp e c ific p e r f o rm a n c e s h o u ld b e d e n ie d . L each , 586 So. 2d at802 ( ci t i ng D uke , 580 So. 2d at 1 2 7 2 -7 4 ). ¶15. A contr actm ay be s eta s i de, how ever , w her e both pa r t i es a tthe t i m e of the agr eement w e re o p e ra tin g u n d e r a m u tu a l m is ta k e o f f a c t. See , e. g. , G r e e rv. H i gg ins , 338 So. 2d 1233, 1 2 3 6 (M is s . 1 9 7 6 ) ( q u o tin g 1 7 C .J .S . C o n tra c ts § 1 4 4 , p. 8 9 4 ). S u ch m ist ak e “m ay a p p ly to the n a tu re o f th e c o n tra c t, th e id e n tity o f th e p e rso n w ith w h o m it i s m a d e , o r th e id e n tity orexi s t ence of

the s ubj ectm att er. . . . ” G r eer , 33 8 So . 2d a t1236 ( quot i ng 17 C. J . S. C on tract s § 144 at894) . I n a ny e vent , the m i s t ake m us tr el at e t o a pas torpr es entm at er i al fa c t to re lie v e a p a rt y (s ) f ro m lia b ility . G r eer , 338 So. 2d a t12 36 ( qu ot i ng 17 C. J . S. C on tract s § 1 4 4 a t 8 9 4 ).A ccordi ng t o W hit e, the li gh tres i den t i al pav em ent coul d n ot hol d u p u nd er the u se 4 of heavy f arm equi pm ent. A ddi t i onal l y, tr ees w hi ch l i ned the dr i vew ay w oul d have t o be re m o v e d . 8 ¶ 1 6 . T h e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t “ th e re w a s a c o n tra c t to se ll lan d b y d e e d c lo sin g w ith in thirty day s; how ever, there w as an errori n the descri pti on . ” H e det erm i ned that the “as i s” cl aus e w i thi n the contr actaf f or ded C ooke an “ escape cl ause. ” H e f ound the f

or ty f eetof f r ont age and the eas ementt o be “vi t al i m por t antfa ct s ” t o t he contr act , butst at ed thatC ooke coul d notconvey s om ethi ng thatthey did no tow n. H e cons trued the l at ers ur veys , w hi ch W hi t e r ej ect ed, as “be i ng i n t he natur e of [ ] count er - of

f er s . ” H e t hen di s m i s s ed the ac t i on, c o n c lu d in g th a t “th e re c o u ld b e n o c lo s in g w ith in th irty d a y s a n d th e re c a n n o t b e sp e c ific per f or m ance of

the s al e of

the pr operty . . . . ” ¶ 1 7 . O u r re v iew o f th e c h a n c e llo r’s o p in io n lea d s u s to c o n c lu d e th a t h e d e n ied sp e c ific p erfo rm an ce b ec au se th e p arti es fa il ed to h av e a “m ee ti n g o f the m ind s” o n a m aterial term of the contr act . T hus , he f ound thatno enf

or cea bl e contr acte xi s t ed due t o a m utual m i s t ake a n d d is m is s e d th e e n tir e a c tio n , in c lu d in g C o o k e ’s c o u n te rc la im . ¶1 8 . W e fin d th a t th e c h a n c e ll o r did n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n in d e n y in g sp e c ific per f or m ance and di s m i s s i ng the ca s e. A tthe t i m e of the contr act , both part i es w er e l abor i ng undera mi s t aken be l i ef thatthe dr i vew ay on tr actt en di d notint rude ont o tr actni ne. T he e x iste n c e o f th e d riv e w a y c o n stitu ted a m a ter ial te rm in th a t itin ter fe re d w ith W h ite’s a b ili ty t o acc es s the pr operty w i th hi s f arm equi pm ent and af

f or ded t he sol e m eans of i ngr es s and 4 egr es s t o the hous e on tr actt en. T hu s, the dri vew ay w as an es s ent i al t erm of the contr act b ase d o n it s im p o rt an ce o r s u b sta n ti al effec t up o n ea ch tr ac t. B ec au se th e p arti es w ere m ista k e n a b o u t a m a ter ial fa c t, w e fin d th a t t h e c h a n c e llo r d id n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n inW hi t e m akes much of the f actthatRoss f

i l ed herde eds c ont ai ning t he eas ement 5 af t erhe ha d f

i l ed hi s c om pl ai ntand l is pend ens no t i ce. Y et , W hit e’s l is pend ens n o tice d id n o t pr e v e n t th e co n v e y a n c e o f th e e a s e m e n t. See G latt liv. B radford , 105 M i s s . 573, 581, 6 2 S o . 6 4 3 , 6 4 4 (19 1 3 ). It s o n ly effec t w as th at R o ss too k the p rop erty su b ject t o W h it e’s ri g h ts a s m a y fi n a lly b e d e te rm in e d . See id . T he cha ncel l orul t i m at el y f ound thatW hi t e had no i nt er es ti n the pr operty beca us e the ca s e w as di s m i s s ed and the l is penden s no t i ce w as re le a s e d . 9 re s c in d in g th e c o n tr a c t. See G r eer , 338 S o. 2d at1236 ( conveya nce of pr operty w as s etas i de d u e to a m u tual m ist ak e o f fact on the p art of b o th o f th e p arti es to the c o n tr ac t) . 5 I I . W het her t he chancel l or er red i n aw ardi ng at t orney f ees t o C ooke. ¶19. T he cha ncel l oraw ar ded att orney f ees t o C ooke on the bas i s thatW hi t e f ai l ed t o act i n good f ai th af t erthe mi s t ake w as di s cover ed. T he cha ncel l orf ound that“by r ej ect i ng t he a d d iti o n a l p lats a n d b y fil in g this ac tio n fo r sp e c ific p e rfo rm a n c e , w h ich w a s d e n ied , W h ite caus ed damage t o C ooke, etal [ . ] i n the natur e of att orney f

ees . ” ¶2 0 . W e fin d th at W h it e d id no t ac t in ba d fai th an d th a t th e c h a n c e llo r a b u se d h is di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng C ooke att orney f ees . I n r ej ect i ng the addi t i onal s ur veys and f i l i ng f or s peci f i c pe r f ormanc e , W hi t e mer e l y s ou gh tt o e nf or c e w ha the be l i e ve d h e ha d c on tr a c t ed fo r— th e p ro p e rty w ith o u t th e ea se m e n t. H a d a v a lid co n tra c t be e n fo u n d , W h ite lik e ly w o u ld h a v e b e e n e n tit led to sp e c ific p e rfo rm a n c e su b jec t to th e e a se m e n t, w ith th e rig h t to re c o v e r d a m a g e s fo r b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t. See W hit m an v. L ars on , 172 A . D . 2d 968, 487, 568 N . Y . S. 2d 485 ( N . Y . A pp. D i v. 1991) ( ci t i ng T a n n e rs R e a lty Co rp . v. R u g g e rio , 111 A . D . 2d 9 7 4 , 9 7 5 , 4 9 0 N .Y .S .2 d 7 3 , 7 4 (N .Y . A p p . D iv . 1 9 8 5 )) . CO NC L US I ON10

¶21. W e af

f i r m the chanc el l or ’ s di s m i s s al of the act i on. H ow ever , w e r ever s e and r ender th e a w a rd o f C o o k e ’s a tto rn e y fe e s . ¶ 2 2 . A F F I R M E D I N P A R T ; R E V E R S E D A N D R E N D E R E D I N P A R T . CARLS ON , P. J . , RAN DO LPH, KI TCHEN S AND PI ERCE , J J . , CONCUR. GR AVES, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY. DI CK I NSON, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D BY C H A N D L E R , J. L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI CKI NS ON, J US TI CE , DI S S EN TI NG : ¶23. T oday’ s m aj or i ty al l ow s a sel l erw ho auct i oned s ever al par cel s of pr operty i n thei r “as is” co n d iti o n , to b a c k o u t of the d e a l be c a u se h e n o w c laim s h e w a s u n a w a re th a t o n e o f h is par cel s had a r oad on i t , a nd he w ant s a notherone of hi s buye r s t o ha ve the r oad. I di s agr ee w ith th e m a

jo rity a n d , the re fo re , res p e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶24. T he i s s ue her e i s eas i l y fr amed, and t he f act s ar e es s ent i al l y un dis pu t ed. T he s el l er contr act ed t o s el l , and the buyercontr act ed t o buy, tr act s 6, 7, 8 and 9. T he contr actbound the s el l ert o convey t i t l e “s ubj ectt o al l eas ement s of r ecor d” exi s t i ng atthe t i m e the contr act wa s e n t e r e d . T h e c o n tr a c ta l s o s t a t e d th a tth e p r o p e r ty “ S HAL L BE CO NVE YE D AND A C C E PT E D i n ‘ as i s ’ condi t i on, ” w i th no w arr ant i es orr epr es ent at i on s of a ny ki nd ot her than thos e expr es s l y st at ed i n t he contr act . I n m y vi ew , “as i s ” appl i es t o al l part i es t o t he contr act , and means the pr operty w i l l be conve yed as the t i t l e an d con dit i on exi s t ed att he t i m e t he co ntr actw as ent ered, no tatthe ti m e of cl osi ng . T o the m aj ori ty, the term “as i s” ap p li es o n ly to the b u y er. ¶25. T he m aj or i ty ci t es no author i ty t o s uppor t the novel not i on that a s el l er m ay contr act t o s el l a par cel of

pr operty “as i s , ” “s ubj ectt o eas emen t s of r ecor d, ” and then – af t er11

co n tr ac ti ng , bu tpri or t o closi ng – g ranteasem ents t o thi rd part i es. Indeed , the m aj ori ty’s f ai l ur e t o ci t e author i ty i s nots urpr i s i ng, as I f i nd s uch not i on uns uppor t ed anyw her e i n t he la w . ¶ 2 6 . T h is c a se is n o t ab o u t a m u tu a l m ista k e o f fa c t. A s e lle r w h o a d v e rtise s a n d se lls pr operty i n i t s “as i s ” condi t i on cannotback outof the dea l beca us e he l at erl earns t he p ro p e rty h e co n tra c ted to se ll h a s a ro a d o n ith e tho u g h t w a s o n a n o th e r p a rc e l h e w a n ts to se ll to s o m e o n e e lse . S tate d a n o th e r w a y : A pers on w ho w ant s t o com e back

lat erand c o r r e c t m is ta ke s sh o u ldn ’tse ll p r o p e r ty “ a s is .” C ooke ca r ef ul l y pl ace d everyone on not i ce that– r egar dl es s of

w hatw as i n the br ochur e – the par cel s w er e bei ng s ol d “as i s . ” Then, a f t e rd i s c o v e r i n g th a tth e “ a s i s ” wa s n o ta s h e t h o u g h ti twa s ( o rwa n t e d i tt o b e ) , h e c l a i ms m utual m i s t ake of

fa ct . I am qui t e s urpr i s ed thatthe maj or i ty i s per s uaded by thi s s peci ous a rg u m e n t. ¶27. T hi s cas e i s al s o notaboutw hen R os s f i l ed her de ed con t ai ning the ea s ement , but ra th e r w h a t R o ss k n e w w h e n sh e a c q u ire d th e e a se m e n t an d filed th e d e e d . M iss iss ip p i is a r ace /not i ce j ur i s di ct i on. T hati s , w her e an ow nerconveys co nfl i ct i ng cl ai m s t o r eal pr operty, the f

i r s tt o f i l e ( w i ns t he “r ace ” t o the courthous e) has pr i or i ty, unl es s thatper s on ta k e s th e in te re s t w ith “ n o tic e ” o f a p ri o r, c o n fl ic tin g c la im . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 8 9 -5-1 thr ough - 5. I f

Ross a cqui r ed an e as ementf r om C ooke w i th know l edge – thati s , not i ce – that C ooke had no r i ghtt o convey the ea s ementbeca us e he ha d al r eady c ontr act ed t o sel l t he property to W hit e, subjecton l y to ease m en t s of r ecord, then her “r ace” t o the cou rtho use ca n n o t ov erc o m e h er no ti ce of W h it e’s i n terest in th e p rop erty. Itsee m s to m e a n elem en tary conce ptof

r eal pr opert y l aw tha tan ow nercannotencumberpr operty he ors he has12

p rev iou sl y con tract ed t o sel l w i tho ut the encu m brance. A nd because M i ssi ssi pp i i s a ra c e /n o tice ju risd ictio n , th e e n c u m b ra n c e is n o t v a lid if th e p e rso n ta k in g th e in ter e st (in th is c a se , ea se m e n t) h a d n o tice o f th e p rio r c o n tra c t to se ll. ¶ 2 8 . B e c a u se I be liev e tha t, u n d e r th e fac ts o f t h is c a s e , W h ite is e n title d to sp e c ific per f or m ance of

the contr act , thati s , conveya nce of the tr act s subj ectonl y t o eas ement s of re c o rd , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. CH AN DL E R, J . , J OI NS T HI S OP I NI ON .