I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - CA- 0 0 8 1 5 - S CT S AM WOOD RUFF v. RIT A T HAMESAN

D L AR RY

COL L I NS D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 15/ 2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JO H N S . G R A N T , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CHANCERY COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: A N I TA M . STA M PS LA RR Y STA M PS ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: BREN TON M ATTH EW CA RTER DA VI D R I NG ER NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT 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 - 07/ 31/ 2014 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 R A N D O L P H , P . J. , K I N G A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. KI NG , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n t hi s r eal - es t at e con t ract cas e, t he t r i al cour t ent er ed a def aul t j udgm entaw ar di ng sp e c ific p e rfo rm a n c e in fa v o r o f th e p u rc h a se r. T h e se ller m o v e d to h a v e th e d e fa u lt j udgm ents etas i de, and the tr i al cour tde ni ed t he m ot i on, f i ndi ng thatt he s el l erl acke d good caus e f ort he def

aul tand l acke d a “c om pel l i ng def ens e. ” A ser i ous quest i on exi s t s r egar di ng w h ethe r a v ali d co n tr ac t exists, g iving the s ell er a co lorab le de fen se. B ec au se th e tri al co u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by f ai l i ng t o setasi de t he def aul tj udgm ent , t hi s C our tr ever s es the tr i al cou rt ’s j ud gm ent and rem and s the case for pr oceed i ng s on the m eri t s.T h e e v iden ce in the ap p ell ate rec o rd is sp arse , a n d m a n y o f th e “ fac ts” all eg ed are 1 b u t b a se a ss e rtio n s m a d e b y th e a tto rn e y s fo r th e p a rties . D o c u m e n ts th a t ar e m e n tio n e d in th e re c o rd (a n d so m e o f w h ich w e re b e fo re th e tri a l co u rt) a n d th a t w o u ld b e h e lp fu l to th is C our t , butthata r e noti n the appel l at e r ecor d, i ncl ude: ( 1) t he W oodruf f depos i t i on; ( 2) the T ham es depos i t i on; ( 3) t he Sm i t h af f i davi t ; ( 4) t he r eques t s f oradmi s s i on; ( 5) t he al l eged contr actw i t h s ubs equentpur chas er s ; ( 6) t he appr ai s al of t he pr oper t y ati s s ue; (7) t he voi ded chec k; and ( 8) an or i gi nal orcol orcopy of the contr act . I nt er es t i ngl y, T hames a nd C ol l i ns f i l ed a m ot i on t o s uppl ementt he r ecor d w i t h t he Sm i t h af f i davi tand the r eques t s f or admi s s i on. T hi s C our tdi s m i s s ed thatm ot i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce beca us e Tham es and C ol l i ns had f ai l ed t o pr ovi de a c er t i f

i ed copy of

t he docum ent s as i s r equi r ed by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 10( e) . T hen, W oodruf f fi l ed a m ot i on t o s uppl ementt he r ecor d w i th t he W oodruf f de pos i t i on, the T hames depos i t i on, a nd the Sm i t h a f f i davi t . T hi s C ou rtal so di s m i s s ed thatm ot i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce f orf ai l ur e t o s ubm i tcert i f i ed co pie s of

t he d o c u m e n ts a s re q u ire d u n d e r M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 1 0 (e ). N e ith e r p a rty bot her ed t o re f

i l e i t s m ot i on w i t h cert i f i ed copi es of

t he document s w i t h w hi ch they w i s hed to su p p lem e n t th e re c o rd . M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 1 0 m a k e s c lea r th a t b o th par t i es have a dut y t o ens ur e thatt he r ecor d bef or e thi s C our ti s compl et e. W hi l e the part i es bot h di d a very poorj ob of ens ur i ng t hatt he appe l l at e re cor d cont ai ned al l r el evant i nf or m at i on, t he ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on on w hetherthe def aul tj udgm ents houl d be s etas i de m ay be m ade by r el yi ng excl us i vel y on an exa m i nat i on of t he f ourcorner s of

t he contr actf

or s al e. 

### 2

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY 1 ¶ 2 . S a m W o o d ru ff, a m a n in h is e ig h ties , o w n e d lan d in R a n k in C o u n ty . H e a g re e d to se ll so m e p art of tha t l an d to R it a T h am es, his fi rstco u sin’s da u g h ter, w h o w as a lso a n eigh b o r. W oo druff

cl ai m s that he ag reed t o sel l T ham es on e acre fr om a t racto f l and for the p urchase pr i ce of $9, 750. T hames c l ai m s t hatW oodruf f agr eed t o s el l her6. 53 acr es f r om a di f f er ent t r actof l and f or$9, 750. W oodruf

f cl ai m s t hatT hames then br oughthi m a bl ank contr actof s al e t o s i gn, w hi ch he di d. T hames a ppear s t o c l ai m thatthe bl ank contr actof s al e i ncl uded at t achment s t hatdes cr i bed the s ubj ectl and; how ever , t he appe l l at e r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence of

thi s . T he r ecor d c ont ai ns onl y ba s e as s ert i ons by hera t t orney r egar di ng w hether t he at t achment s w er e par tof the contr actw hen si gned. W oodruf f , how ever , cl ai m s t hatthe at t achment s w er e notpr es entatt he t i m e he si gned t he contr act . Fur t herm or e, T hames a l l eges

### 3

that L arry C o ll ins, he r th e n -b o y fri en d , an d K im b erly R icha rdso n , a n o tary p u b li c, w ere pr es entf ort he si gni ng of the contr act . W oodruf f cl ai m s t hatnei t herC ol l i ns norR i char ds on w a s p re se n t fo r th e sig n in g o f th e co n tra c t. A c c o rd in g to W o o d ru ff, T h a m e s th e n g a v e h im $4, 000 earnes tm oney and be gan poi nt i ng t o t he “w r ong l and. ” H e “then r eal i zed that[ they] w er e nott al ki ng aboutt he sa m e pi ece of r eal pr oper t y and i m m edi at el y w r ot e ‘ voi d’ on the chec k, and r etur ned i tt o her . ” Tham es admi t s thathe w r ot e voi d on t he check and thathe r ef us ed the ea r nes tm oney. T hames a r gued atthe hea r i ng thatW oodruf f r ej ect ed the paymenti m m edi at el y af t erhe si gned t he contr actbecaus e he s uddenl y had anothercontr act fo r a h ig h e r p u rc h a s e p ri c e o n th e la n d . ¶3 . O n D e c e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 1 0 , T h a m e s a n d C o lli n s file d a c o m p lain t fo r sp e c ific per f or m ance . W i t h t he com plai nt , T hames s erved r eques t s f oradmi s s i on and other di s covery. T hames a t t ache d t he C ont r actf orSal e and Pur chas e o f R eal E s t at e t o t he compl ai nt , al ong w i t h t he al l eged a t t achment s t o the contr act . T he cont ractst at es thatt he s el l erand pur chas eragr ee t o s el l and pu rchase “the her ei naf t erdes cr i bed pr oper t y on the t erm s and condi t i ons s t i pul at ed i n t he fol l ow i ng s chedul es and both Sel l erand Pur chas er acknow l edge t hatthi s i s the pr ocur i ng c aus e of thi s s al e. ” The ne xts ect i on i s ent i t l ed

“ D e sc rip tio n /P ro p e rty A d d re ss .” T h e d e sc rip tio n is c o m p lete ly b lan k . It d e sc rib e s u tterly no t hing, and do es notr ef er ence any exhi bi t s . T he Sel l eri s l i s t ed as Sam W oodruf f , and the p u rc h a se rs a s R ita T h a m e s a n d L a rry C o lli n s. In th e p h o to c o p y , C o lli n s’s n a m e a p p e a rs to be w r i t t en i n dif

fer enti nk t han ar e W oodruf f’ s and Tham es ’ s , butnei t hert he or i gi nal co n tr ac t no r a c o lor co p y is i n the a p p ell ate rec o rd, n o r d o they ap p ea r t o h av e b ee n b efo re th e tr ia l c o u rt .

### Woodruf f c laim s that

the6.53 a cr es is actually worth a pproxi mate ly $64, 000, 2 

### becau se $9 ,00 0-p lus is th e wo rth-p er-acre of his lan d. Dav id R ing er is the atto rneyfor T hames an d C ollin s. 3 

### 4 ¶4. T he contr act t hen l i s t s t he pr i ce. I t f ur t her cont ai ns a t i t l e and conveya nce pr ovi s i on 2 t hats t at es t hatt he “ Sell er is to fu rn ish P u rc h a se r w ith C e rtifica te o f T itl e p re p a re d b y D a v id a tto rn e y [sic ], u p o n w h o se c e rtifica te o f title w ill b e o b tain e d tit le in su ra n c e . . .” (E m p h a sis 3 added. ) T hatpr ovi s i on al s o cont ai ned a s t at ementt hat“Ti t l e s hal l be good and m er chant abl e, s ubj ectonl y t o t he f ol l ow i ng i t ems r ecor ded i n t he C hancery C l erk’ s of f i ce o f __

__ C o u n ty[] . ” N o tably , the c o u n ty w as left b lank . L ikew ise, the c losing d ate w as left bl ank. T he contr actal s o pr ovi des f orw ho i s t o pa y f

orm ul t i pl e cos t s , s uch as an appr ai s al and a s ur vey. Forevery cos t , t he l et t er s “N / A ” w er e w r i t t en. H ow ever, o n t he l i nes f or “A t t or ney’ s f

ee: ( i ncludi ng C er t i f

i cat e of T i t l e and Tr ans f

erof I ns t rum ent ) ” and “ O ther C lo sin g C o sts ,” “ N /A ” is s c ra tch e d o u t an d re p lac e d w ith “ P ” to in d ica te t h a t T h a m e s is re sp o n sib le f

o r th o se c o sts . T h e le tter “ P ” a p p e a rs f ro m th e b lac k -a n d -w h ite p h o to c o p y to be w r i t t en i n di f

f er enti nk t han ar e t he l ett er s “N / A . ” N o one i ni t i al ed nextt o the s cr at chedoutpor t i ons . Confus i ngl y, the pur chas eri s t o pay f ort he ce r t i f

i cat e of t i t l e w hen the contr act s peci f i cal l y pr ovi ded el s ew her e thatt he s el l erw as t o pr ovi de the pur chas erw i t h t he ce rt if icate o f t it le pre p are d b y “D av id attorn ey , ” w h ich a p p are n tl y referred to D av id R ing er, t he p u rch a ser’s a tto rn e y . ¶ 5 . Th e c o n t r a c tc o n t a i n s a p r o v i s i o n s t a t i n g th a t“ [ t ] h i s i n s t ru me n ti s t o c o n t a i n a l l t e r ms of thi s s al e, and no r epr es entat i ons have be en m ade otherthan ar e her ei n contai ned .” (Em ph asi s added . ) I tal so st at es that “[ b] oth part i es agree that th is co n tr act , un l ess

### Woodruf f s ugges ts that t

his docum ent

was likely theproduc t of a s urve y conduc te d 4 

### wh en th ey filedthe law suit. 5 s ubs equent l y am ended i n w r i t i ng, cont ai ns t he f i nal and ent i r e agr eementbet w een the part i es her et o, and neither pa rt y shall be b ou ndby a ny term s, con dit i on s, oral s tatem ents , w arrant i es , orr epr es entat i ons nother ei n contai ned . ” ( Em ph a s i s a dd e d. ) A ga i n, t he f our c o rn e rs o f th e c o n tra c t m a k e n o m e n tio n o f a n y a ttac h m e n ts o r a m e n d m e n ts to th e c o n tra c t. T he contr acti s dat ed N ovember5, 2010, and i s s i gned by W oodruf f , T hames, C ol l i ns , and a n o ta ry p u b lic . ¶6. A l s o at t ache d t o t he compl ai nt i s a s ur vey of t he l and T hames cl ai m s w as t he s ubj ect of t he contr act , and thatT hames c l ai m s w as att ache d t o the contractw hen i tw as s i gned. 4 N o n e o f th e p a rties in iti a led o r sig n e d th e su rv e y to in d ica te th e ir a c c e p tan c e o f it, n o r is it dat ed. Tham es a l s o a t t ache d a w r i t t en l egal de s cr i pt i on of the l and, a l so un dated and uns i gned, t o t he compl ai nt . T hames c l ai m s thatthi s des cr i pti on w as al s o att ache d t o the con t ractw hen i tw as si gn ed. A dd i t i on al l y, T ham es at t ached t o the c om plai nt a “Fi rs t Pr el i m i nary C ert i f

i cat e of T i t l e” pr epar ed f

orT hames by he rat t orney, D avi d R i nger , and s i gned by hi m on N ovember8, 2010, at8: 00 a. m . T he ce r t i f i cat e of t i t l e r ef

er ence d the la n d ’s w ri tte n le g a l d e s c ri p tio n , w h ic h w a s a tta c h e d th e re to . ¶7. W oodruf

f w as s erved w i t h t he compl ai nt and di s covery, i ncludi ng t he reque s t s f or admi s s i on, o n January 7, 2011. W oodruf f w as t hus r equi r ed t o f i l e an a ns w ert o the com plai nt w i t hin thirt y d ays, and an an sw er t o the d i scovery w i t hin f orty-f i ve d ays. M . R . C . P . 1 2 (a), 3 6 (a). T h e fo rty -fi fth d ay after serv ice w as F eb rua ry 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 . O n F eb rua ry 25, 2011, T hames a nd C ol l i ns f i l ed a M ot i on f

orD ef aul tJ udgm ent , as w el l as an appl i cat i on

### 6

fo r en try o f d e fa u lt a n d su p p o rtin g aff id a v it. T h a t sa m e d a y , th e ch a n c e ry cle rk o f R a n k in C ount y i s s ued an entr y of de f aul ta gai ns tW oodruf

f . O n M ar ch 3, 2011, j us tt en days af t er W oo druf f’ s f ort y- f i ve d a ys t o f

i l e a n a ns w e rt o di s c ov e r y e nd e d, the Cha nc e r y Cour tof R anki n C ount y ent er ed a de f aul tj udgm enta gai ns tW oodruf f . T he def aul tj udgm entgr ant ed s p e c if ic p e rf o rm a n c e , o rd e ri n g th e p ro p e rt y tr a n s fe rr e d to T h a m e s a n d C o llin s . ¶8. B ef

or e the thi r t y days t o f

i l e an a ns w err an, W oodruf f t ook t he compl ai ntand al l of hi s pa perw or k t o W i l l i am Sm i t h, a n a t t orney. W oodruf f doe s nots peci f

i cal l y as s ertt hathe hi r ed Sm i t h, a nd i tdoe s nota ppearthatW oodruf f pa i d Sm i t h ors i gned an engage m ent co n tr ac t, alth o u g h h e m aintains that h e tho u g h t Sm ith w as re p rese n ti n g h im . H o w ev er, W o o d ru ff s tate s in h is a ffid a v it th a t h e “ d ism iss e d ” S m ith o n c e h e lea rn e d ab o u t th e d e fa u lt j udgm ent . T hames mai nt ai ned that , acc or di ng t o Sm i t h, ther e w as no engage m entof s ervi ces . W oodruf

f l earned of

t he def aul tj udgm enti n M ar ch 2011, and ats om e poi nt there after, retaine d h is cu rren t cou n sel. O n M ay 1 6 , 2 0 1 1 , an d M ay 1 9 , 2 0 1 1 , W o o d ruff’s curr entc ouns el s entur gentl et t er s t o Sm i t h r egar di ng w hy Sm i t h f ai l ed t o ans w ert he or i gi nal c o m p la in t. ¶9. O n J une 20, 2011, W oodruf f f i l ed a M ot i on t o SetA s i de J udgm ent , St ay Execut i on of J udgm ent , ForE xt ens i on of Ti m e f orA ppeal and forO t herR el i ef , as w el l as hi s A ns w er a n d A ffirm a tiv e D e fe n se s. A fte r a h e a rin g o n the sa m e , th e tri a l co u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n to set aside the d efa u ltjud g m en t. In m ak ing it s ruling , the tri al co u rtc o n side red that W o o d ruff di d nott i m el y ans w ert he r eques t s f oradmi s s i on, acknow l edgi ng T hames’ s ar gum entt hat th e y sh o u ld b e d e e m e d a d m itt e d a n d s tatin g th a t “ in th e e v e n t th a t a tria l w a s h e ld , tha t w o u ld b e a m att er tha t w o u ld h av e to b e c o n side red b y the C o u rt . ” In it s b en ch ruli n g , the tri al co u rt

### 7

fou n d that itw as “ h ard , in fac t, im p o ssible, t o g et by th e fi rstp ron g , ” find ing that W o o d ruff di d nothave good c aus e f orhi s f ai l ur e t o a ns w eri n a t i m el y m anner . T he courtal s o f ound t hatt he ar gum entt hatW oodruf f had a c olor abl e def

ens e bec aus e no meet i ng of the mi nds occurr ed w as “notcom pel l i ng. ” Itfurt herf ound the ar gum entt hatexhi bi t s m ay have been a d d e d to th e c o n tra c t af ter the fac t “u n su b sta n tiate d ” b e c a u se th e re w a s o n ly “ lip se rv ice to t he f actt hatt hi s w as done, ” not i ng t hat“[ t ] her e has been no show i ng w hat s oeverthatei ther R i t a Tham es orL arr y C ol l i ns w as i n any m ode t o orc hes t r at e mi s conduct , m i s r epr es ent at i on, orf r aud, w hi ch f

r aud, of c our s e, ha s t o be pr oven by c l eara nd c onvi nci ng evi dence [ . ] ” The fin a l ju d g m e n t p ro v id e d th a t W o o d ru ff h a d “ fa iled to s h o w g o o d c a u se fo r h a v in g fa iled to a n s we rt h e Co mp l a i n ti n a t i me l y f a s h i o n , ” a n d th a tW o o d ru f f h a d “ f a i l e d t o s h o w a compel l i ng def

ens e orot herr eas on w hy s houl d be s etasi de t he J udgm ent[ s i c] . ” I tt hen not ed r egar di ng pr ej udi ce “ t hatt he f ai l ur e t o s at i s f

y the f i r s tt w o bur dens pr event[ s i c] [ the C our t ] f r om f ur t hercons i der at i on on the thi r d el ement . ” ¶1 0. A ggr i e ve d, W oo druf f a pp e a l s , a r gu i ng t ha t t he t r i a l c ou r t s ho ul d ha ve s e t a s i de t he def aul tj udgm entbeca us e: 1) W oodruf f had good ca us e f

ordef aul t ; 2) W oodruf

f w as ent i t l ed t o not i ce of

t he entr y of def

aul t ; 3) W oodruf

f has col or abl e def

ens es , i ncl udi ng t hatt her e w as no a cce pt ance , unj us te nr i chment , and the contr actw as voi dabl e f orl ack of

des cr i pt i on; 4) T hames a nd C ol l i ns w i l l s uf f erno harm f

ul pr ej udi ce i f

the def aul tj udgm enti s s etas i de; and 5) W oodruf

f i s ent i t l ed t o have the def aul tj udgm ents eta s i de underRul e 60 bec aus e he w as

### Bec aus e this Court ’s deci si on re sults in s etting as idethedef ault j udgme nt, we ne ed 5 

### not a ddre ss theargume nt t hat thecontra ct

is uncons ci onabl e. Woodruf f c laim s that

he shoul d have been gi ven threedays’ notic e of a hearing on 6 

### theappl ic ation f

or de fa ult judgm ent . Thi s argume nt is without m erit . Threedays ’ notic e of

8 d e fra u d e d . H e als o arg u e s, in th e alte rn a tiv e , th a t th e sa le s h o u ld b e res c in d e d b e c a u se it i s uncons ci onabl e, as t her e w as a uni l at er al m i s t ake. 5 A N A L Y S IS Standard of

R eview ¶1 1 . T h is C o u rt re v iew s th e tr ial co u rt ’s de cisi o n on a m o ti o n to se t as id e a d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . A m . S ta tes In s. Co . v. R og ill io , 10 So. 3d 4 6 3 , 4 6 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 ) . D e f a u lt ju d g m e n ts a re n o t f a v o re d in th e la w . I

d. If re a so n a b le doubtexi st s as t o w hethera def aul tj udgm ents houl d be vac at ed, “the doubts houl d be r es ol ved i n fa vorof openi ng t he j udgm entand hear i ng the ca s e on i t s m er i t s . ” I d. ( quot i ng McCain v. D auzat , 791 So. 2d 839, 843 ( M i s s . 2001) ) . H ow ever , the part y s eeki ng r el i ef fro m th e d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t is n o t e n tit led to re lief a s a m a tter o f rig h t, an d th is C o u rt w ill o n ly re v e rs e th e tr ia l c o u rt w h e re it h a s a b u s e d its d is c re tio n . R og ill io , 10 So. 3d at467. D e f aul t Jud gm e nt ¶12. T he cl erk of cour t m ay ent er a def aul t agai ns t “a par t y agai ns t w hom a j udgm entf or af f i r m at i ve r el i ef

i s s ought ” w hen thatpar t y “has fa i l ed t o pl ead orot herw i s e def end . . . and t hatf acti s m ade t o appea rby af f i davito r otherw i s e. ” M . R . C . P. 55( a) . Fur t her , “[ i ] f t he par t y agai ns tw hom j udgm entby def aul ti s s oughtha s a ppear ed i n the act i on, he . . . s hal l be s erved w i t h w r i t t en not i ce of t he appl i cat i on f

orj udgm entat l eas tthr ee da ys pr i ort o the h ea ri n g o f suc h ap p li ca ti o n . ” M . R . C . P . 5 5 (b). 6

### a de fa

ult hearing is only require d when a party has appe ar ed in theac ti on. Woodr uff did not app ear in th e actionprio r to th e entryof th e jud gment of d efault. 9 ¶13. A c our tmay s eta s i de t he entr y of de f aul tf orgood caus e s how n “and, i f a j udgm ent b y d e fa u lt h a s b e e n e n te re d , m a y lik e w is e s e t it a s id e in a c c o rd a n c e w ith R u le 6 0 (b ).” M . R . C . P. 55( c) . R ul e 60( b) pr ovi des t hata courtm ay r el i eve a par t y f r om a f i nal j udgm ent fort he fol l ow i ng reas on s: ( 1) f r aud, m i s r epr es ent at i on, orot herm i s conductof an adve r s e part y; ( 2) acc i dentorm i s t ake; ( 3) new l y di s cover ed evi dence w hi ch by due di l i gence coul d nothave be en d isco v ere d in ti m e to m o v e fo r a n ew tr ial u n d er R u le 59 (b); ( 4) t he j udgm enti s voi d; ( 5) t he j udgm enthas been s at i s f i ed, r el eas ed, ordi s charged, ora pr i or ju d g m e n t u p o n w h ich it is b a se d h a s b e e n re v e rse d o r o th e rw ise v a c a ted , o r it i s no l ongere qui t abl e t hatthe j udgm ents houl d have pr os pect i ve appl i cat i on; (6 ) a n y o th e r re a so n ju stify in g re lief f ro m th e ju d g m e n t. M . R . C . P. 60( b) . “Thi s Courtha s not ed t hat‘ [ a] s cert ai ni ng t he meani ng of the pr ovi s i ons of R ul e 55( c) and R ul e 60( b) ( 5) and ( 6) w i t h any degr ee of pr eci s i on s i m pl y m ay notbe done f ort he l anguage i s hopel es s l y open t extur ed. ’ ” R og ill io , 10 So. 3d at467 ( quot i ng G u a ra n ty N at ’ l I ns. Co. v. P itt

m an , 5 01 S o. 2 d 37 7, 3 88 (M i ss. 1 98 7)) (al t erat i on in ori ginal ). T hu s, consi der i ng t he i nt erpl ay of t hos e rul es es s ent i al l y r es ul t s i n a bal anci ng of t he equi t i es. R og ill io , 10 So. 3d at467 ( quot i ng P itt m an , 5 0 1 S o . 2 d a t 3 8 8 ). ¶14. I n det erm i ni ng w hether t o s et as i de a def aul t j udgm ent , t he t r i al cour t m us tcons i der a th re e -p a rt b a la n c in g te s t. R og il lio , 1 0 S o . 3 d a t 4 6 7 -6 8 . T h e trial c o u rt, an d th u s th is

### 10

C our t , m us texami ne: 1) w hethert he def endanthas go od caus e f orthe def

aul t ; 2) w hether t he def endanthas a col orabl e d efense t o the mer i t s of t he cl ai m agai ns thi m ; and 3) the p re ju d ic e , if a n y , th a t t h e p la in tif

f m a y s u ff

e r i f t h e c o u rt s e ts a s id e th e d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t. I d. at468 ( quot i ng H& W

T ra n sfe r & Ca rtag e S e rv ., In c . v. G riffin , 51 1 S o. 2d 89 5, 89 8 (M i ss. 1 9 8 7 )). a . G o o d C a u se fo r D e

fa u lt ¶ 1 5 . W o o d ru ff a lleg e s th a t h e w a s d ilig e n t b y tim e ly tak in g h is p a p e rw o rk to S m ith to r evi ew . H e ur ges t hathe w as underthe i m pr es s i on t hathe had hi r ed Sm i t h and di d not r eal i ze thatno r es pons e had be en f i l ed on h i s behal f

. W oodruf

f al s o not es t hatboth m en w er e i n thei rei ght i es , pr es um abl y ar gui ng thatt hi s s upport s good caus e f orany conf

us i on. ¶1 6 . T h is C o u rth a s h e ld th a t sim ilar c irc u m stan ce s d id n o t con sti tute g o o d ca u se. In G riffin , t he def

endantcompany prudent l y f orw ar ded a compl ai nta gai ns ti tt o i t s i ns ur ance c o m p a n y , w h ic h d ilig e n tly m a ile d th e p a p e rw o rk to a n a tto rn e y . G riffin , 511 S o. 2d at896- 97, 899. U nf

or tunat el y, the i ns ur ance company’ s addr es s f ort he att orney w as i ncorr ect , and th e a tto rn e y d id n o t re c e iv e th e p a p e rw o rk , o r e v e n lea rn o f th e m a tter, u n til a fte r th e d e fa u lt w a s e n te re d . I

d. at897. T he def

endanti m prudent l y di d notf ol l ow up w i t h the i ns ur ance c o m p a n y afte r itm a iled itthe co m p lain t, a n d th e in su ra n c e c o m p a n y d id n o t fo llo w u p w ith th e a tto rn e y a ft e r i t m a ile d h im th e p a p e rw o rk . I d . a t 8 9 9 . T h e C o u rt fo u n d th a t th e se fa c ts w er e “l es s t han pow er f

ul i n t hei ri nf

l uence ei t herw ay. ” I

d. I ts um m ar i zed t hat , “though t he in iti a l ste p s o f b o th [th e d e fe n d a n t an d its in su ra n c e p ro v id e r] w e re re a so n a b le a n d p ru d e n t, eac h t her eaf

t erdr opped the bal l . ” I d. I tconcl uded thatt he def end ant’ s si tuat i on di d not a m o u n t t o g o o d c a u s e f o r th e d e fa u lt. I

d. S im ilarly , ita p p e a rs th a t W o o d ru ff w a s in iti a lly

### 11

prudenti n t aki ng hi s document s t o an att orney. H ow ever , i tappea r s t hatW oodruf f never rec eive d a re tain er a g ree m en t or p aid S m ith , an d y et ne v er fo ll o w ed u p in this m att er. W o o d ru ff’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e c o n fu sio n w a s re a so n a b le, g iv e n tha t bo th W o o d ru ff a n d S m ith w ere in the ire igh ti es, is n o t un think ab le; b u t, g iven tha t no m en tal d eficien cies o n the p art o f e i t h e rma n a r e a l l e g e d , i tr e ma i n s th a tW o o d ru f f s h o u l d h a v e f

o l l o we d u p wi t h S mi t h . As i n t he G riffin c a se , the fa c ts a re n o t p o w e rfu lly in flu e n tial e ith e r w a y , thu s th e trial c o u rt d id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n b y h o lding this factor a g ains t W o o d ruff. b. C olorabl e D ef

ense ¶ 1 7 . W o o d ru ff c laim s th a t th e tri a l co u rt err e d in fin d in g tha t he d id n o t ha v e a c o lo ra b le def ens e. T he t r i al cour tfound thatno “compel l i ng” def ens e exi s t ed and thatW oodruf f had onl y pai d “l i p s ervi ce” t o hi s acc us at i ons thatthe exhi bi t s t o the contr actw er e added a f t ert he f act . W oodruf

f cl ai m s t hatt her e i s nota val i d contr actbeca us e ther e w as nei t heracc ept ance nora meet i ng of

t he mi nds , t hatt he contr acti s voi dabl e beca us e i tl acks a des cr i pt i on of t he pr oper t y, and t hatT hames and C ol l i ns w er e unj us t l y enr i ched be caus e no cons i der at i on w as g iv e n . W o o d ru ff a lso a rg u e s th a t th e fo rc e d sa le s h o u ld b e re s c in d e d a s u n c o n sc io n a b le becau se there w as unil at eral m i st ake an d n o m eet i ng of the m i nd s. ¶ 1 8 . A d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t h a v e to p ro v e a d e fe n se fo r it b e “ c o lo ra b le.” “ C o lo ra b le” is defi ned as “ appear i ngt o be true, val i d, orr i ght . ” B l ack’s La w D i ct i on ary 282 ( 8th ed. 2004) ( emphasi s added) . A “col or abl e cl ai m ” i s def i ned as “[ a] cl ai m t hati s l egi t i m at e an d t hat m ay re a so n a b ly b e a ss e rte d , g iv e n th e fa c ts p re se n ted a n d th e c u rre n t law (o r a re a so n a b le and l ogi cal e xt ens i on orm odi f i cat i on of

the curr entl aw ) . ” B l ack’s La w D i ct i on ary 2 6 4 (8 th ed. 20 04 ) ( em ph asi s added ). T hu s, a defense do es nothave t o be prove n t o tr i al st and ards,

### 12

norm us ti tbe “ compel l i ng, ” as w as i m pr oper l y r equi r ed by the tr i al cour ti n thi s cas e, t o be “col or abl e”; i tm er el y needs t o be “r eas onabl e. ” I ndeed, thi s C our thas hel d t hat even a d e fe n s e o f “ q u e s tio n a b le ” s tr e n g th m a y b e c o lo ra b le . R og ill io , 1 0 S o . 3 d at 47 1 (“T h is C o u rt i s per s uaded by Rogi l l i o’s ar gum entr egar di ng the ambi gui ty i n t he i ns ur ance pol i cy and f i nds t hatt he str ength of A m er i can St at es ’ def ens e i s ques t i onabl e. N evert hel es s , w e ar e of t he opi ni on t hatA m er i can St at es ’ def ens e does pr es enta c ol or abl e def ens e t o t he mer i t s of t he [ s i c] R ogi l l i o’ s cl ai m f ort he purpos e of

t he bal anci ng t es t . T her ef or e, t he s econd pr ong of t he bal anci ng t es tw ei ghs i n fa vorof A m er i can St at es . ”) . Fur t her , t he pr ong of w hether t he def endanthas a col or abl e def ens e on the mer i t s out w ei ghs the otherf act or s of t he b a la n c in g te s t in its im p o rt a n c e . I d. a t 4 6 9 . ¶1 9. “The el emen t s o f a v a l i d c on t r a c ta r e : ( 1) tw o orm or e contr act i ng par t i es , ( 2) c o n sid e ra tio n , (3 ) a n a g re e m e n t th a t is su ffic ien tly d e fin ite, (4 ) p a rties w ith leg a l ca p a c ity to m a k e a c o n tr a c t, ( 5 ) m u tu a l a s s e n t, ( 6 ) n o le g a l p ro h ib itio n p re c lu d in g c o n tr a c t f o rm a tio n .” R ottenber r

y v. Hooker , 8 6 4 S o . 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). “A c o n tra c t is u n e n fo rc e a b le if t he mat er i al t erm s ar e notsuf f i ci ent l y def

i ni t e. ” I d. T he des cr i pt i on of

the l and i n a contr act fo r th e sa le o f re a l p ro p e rty is u n q u e stio n a b ly a n e ss e n tial te rm th a t m u s t b e sta ted w ith s p e c if ic ity . See M i ss. C od e A nn . § 1 5-3-1( c) ( R ev. 2 01 2) (contr actfort he sal e of l and s m ust b e in w riting ); T

heobold v. N

osser , 752 So. 2d 1036, 1040 ( M i s s . 1999) ( contr act s f ort he sa le o f la n d m u st d e sc rib e th e lan d “ w ith re a so n a b le c e rta in ty ” ); N i c ke rs on v. Fithian Land Co. , 11 8 M i ss. 72 2 (191 8) ( an ag reem ent t o c o nv ey land “can no tbe en for ced in any case u n les s th e w riting id e n tif ie s w ith c e rta in ty th e p ro p e rty so u g h t to b e c o n v e y e d ” ); see al so

### 13

R otten berry , 8 6 4 S o . 2 d a t 2 7 0 (“ P ric e is a n e ss e n tial te rm th a t m u st b e sta ted w ith sp ec if ici ty. T h e c o n tr ac t f

ail s w h en the p ri ce h as n o t bee n stat ed w ith sp ec if ici ty.”). ¶20. W hen i nt erpr et i ng a c ont r act , a c our tmustf i r stexam i ne the f

ou r cor ners of that c o n tr a c t. R otten berry , 864 So . 2d at27 0. If a con t ract ’s l ang uag e i s cl ear and u nam biguou s, th e n it m u s t b e e ff

e c tu a te d . I

d. Fur ther , i f

vaguene s s or ambi gui ty exi s t , t he t erm s m us tbe

“ s tr o n g ly 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. “ O n ly w h e n the inte n t of the p a rties is notcl ear ” af

t erexam i ni ng t he l anguage and construi ng t he l anguage m os tfa vor abl y t o t he n o n d ra ft in g p a rt y s h o u ld th e C o u rt re s o rt to e x a m in in g e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e . I d. ; Facil ities, I nc. v. Rogers - U

s r y Chevr olet

, I nc. , 908 So. 2d 107, 111 ( M i s s . 2005) . “I ti s onl y w hen the r evi ew of

a contr actr eac hes thi s poi ntthatpr i ornegot i at i on, agr eement s and conve r s at i ons m i gh tb e c on s i de r e d i n de t e r mi ni ng the p a r t i e s ’ i nt e nt i on s i n t he c on s t ruc t i on o f t he contr act . ” Facilities, I

nc. , 908 So. 2d at111. T hi s C our thas f ound that“s i l ence al one does notnece s s ar i l y creat e an am bi gui t y as a mat t erof l aw . ” I d. a t 1 1 5 ; see al

so W i l l is t on on C o n tra c ts 4t h § 30: 4 ( 2012) ( “[ A ] m bi gui t y does notnece s s ar i l y exi stsi m pl y beca us e a co n tr ac t r eq u ir es in terpretati o n o r fail s to d efine a term , an d the fa il u re to inc lud e m o re e x p re ss lan g u a g e o f th e p a rties ’ in ten t d o e s n o t c re a te a n a m b ig u ity in th e c o n tra c t w h e n o n ly one r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on exi s t s . T he contr act ’ s si l ence on a par t i cul ari s s ue does not , by i t s el f , cr eat e an a m bi gui t y as a mat t erof l aw . . . . ”) ; 17A A m . J ur . 2d C o n tra c ts § 331 ( 2004) ( “A m bi gui t y i n a w r i t t en agr eementdoes notar i s e f r om s i l ence , butf

r om w hatw as w r i t t en s o bl i ndl y and i m per f

ect l y t hati t s m eani ng i s doubt f ul . ”) . A ddi t i onal l y, Foran i ncorpor at i on by r ef er ence t o be ef

f ect i ve, itm us tbe cl eart hatt he par t i es t o t he agr eementhad know l edge of and as s ent ed t o the i ncorpor at ed t erm s . A r ef

erence t o anotherdocumentm us tbe cl earand unequi vocal , and

### 14

th e ter m s o f th e in c o rp o ra ted d o c u m e n t m u st b e k n o w n o r e a sily a v a ilab le to t he part i es . A documenti s cons i der ed i ncorpor at ed by r ef er ence w her e the i nco rpo r a t i ng d oc umen ts pe c i f i c a l l y pr ov i de s tha ti ti s s ub j e c tt o t he i ncorpor at ed one. H ow ever , a mer e r ef er ence t o anotherdocumenti s not su ffic ien t to in c o rp o ra te th a t o th e r d o c u m e n t in to a c o n tra c t; th e w riting to w hi ch r ef

er ence i s m ade m us tbe desc r i bed i n such t erm s t hati t s i dent i t y m ay b e a sc e rta in e d b e y o n d re a so n a b le d o u b t. 1 7 A C .J .S . C o n tra c ts § 4 0 2 (20 1 1 ). ¶21. M or eover , i f a cont r act i s val i d, i t m us t be det erm i ned i f s peci f i c per f or m ance i s an a p p ro p ri a te re m e d y . T h is C o u rt h a s sta te d th a t “ [f ]o r s p e c if

ic p e rf o rm a n c e to b e g ra n te d , a contr actm us tbe re as onabl y com pl et e and r eas onabl y def i ni t e on m at er i al t erm s . ” W hi te v. Cooke , 4 S o . 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ). A c o n tra c t en jo y s th is le v e l o f s p e c ificity w h e n it c o n tain s “ m a tter w h ich w ill e n a b le th e c o u rt u n d e r p ro p e r ru les o f c o n stru c tio n to a sc e rta in i t s t erm s , i ncl udi ng cons i der at i on of t he gene r al ci r cumst ance s and i f necess ary r el evant extr i ns i c evi dence . ” I

d. (i nternal qu otat i on s om i t t ed). “If the con t ractdoes not pass this t est of s peci f i ci t y, i ts houl d b e rend er ed unenf or cea bl e, and s peci f

i c per f or m ance s houl d be deni ed. ” I

d. W h e re a w riting “is too ind e fin ite a n d u n c e rta in in its term s,” s p e c if ic p e rf o rm a n c e s h o u ld b e re fu s e d . N i ckers on , 118 M i s s . at722. ¶22. T he t r i al cour t det erm i ned t hat W oo druf f m er el y pai d “l i p s ervi ce” t o hi s pot ent i al d efe n ses, rathe r th an p u tt ing forth su ffi cien t ev iden ce . T h is de term ination w as in co rrect. In t hi s cas e, a cour tneed onl y l ook att he f ourcorner s of

t he contr acti t s el f

, a copy of

w hi ch w as b e fo re th e trial c o u rt, t o a sc e rta in th a t W o o d ru ff h a s s e v e ra l d e fe n se s th a t ar e n o t o n ly col or abl e, butpos s i bl y even s t r ong. T he f ourcor ner s of

t he contr actcont ai n abs ol ut el y no des cr i pt i on of

the pr oper t y t o be s ol d; i tdoe s note ven i ncl ude t he county i n w hich t he s ubj ectpr oper t y i s l ocat ed. N ordoes t he contr actcon t ai n any r ef er ence t o an att ache d

### Whether there ques ts for

adm is si on ar e de em ed adm itte d a ppears to bea m atte r f

or 7 

### trial, no t for a h earing ona defau lt jud gment. 15 d esc ri p ti o n , ren d ering the a rgu m en t th at th e a ll eg ed ly att ac h ed pro p erty d esc ri p ti o n s are p art of t he contr actvery ques t i onabl e, as doc um ent s i ncorpor at ed by r ef er ence s houl d be des cr i bed w i t h s om e s peci f i ci t y i n the contr act , and thi s contr actdes cr i bed nothi ng. T he contr actal s o cont ai ns def i ni t i ve s t at ement s t hatt he ent i r ety of t he contr acti s cont ai ned w i t hi n t he f

ourcor ner s of

t he document . I f

t he att achment s ar e notpartof t he contr act , the l ack of w r i t t en des cr i pt i on of

t he l and w ou l d re ndert he contr actunenf or cea bl e undert he St atut e of

Fr auds . Fur t her , i tappea r s poss i bl e t hatsome of t he el ement s of a va l i d contr act w er e notm et , namel y w hethert he agr eementi s s uf f i ci ent l y def

i ni t e and w hetherm utual as s entw as pr es ent . T hus , “col orabl e” def ens es ar e appa r entf

r om t he f

ourcorner s of

t he c o n tr a c t. ¶23. E ven i f t he contr act w er e deemed ambi guous , t he f i r s t rul e of cons t ruct i on af t ers uch a f i ndi ng i s t hati tbe s t r ongl y cons t rued aga i ns tt he dr af t i ng part y, i n thi s c as e, T hames a nd C o lli n s. O n ly if it i s s til l am b ig u o u s m a y the co u rt ex a m in e ex trin sic ev id e n c e . It m a y w e ll b e tha t attr ial , T h am es a n d C o ll ins c o u ld p rov e tha t th e e x h ibit s d esc ri b ing the lan d w ere p art of t he contr act , butt hatdoes notobl i t er at e W oodruf f’ s col or abl e def

ens es . T hus , the tr i al 7 cour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng thatW oodruf

f’ s de f ens es w er e “notcompel l i ng, ” and th is fa c to r s tr o n g ly fa v o rs W o o d ru ff. c. P r ej udi ce ¶24. W oodruf

f ar gues t hatT hames and C ol l i ns w oul d suf f erno s i gni f

i cantpr ej udi ce f

r om h a v in g th e d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t o v e rtu rn e d . T h e tria l co u rt p ro b lem a tica lly d id n o t ad d re ss th is

### The argume nt that it i s il logi ca l t o cons ide r a llthefa ct ors in a fa ct or t es t i s wi thout 8 

### me ri t. “Fa ct or te st s . . . mus t be cons ide re d on the r ec ord in eve ry c as e. ” Lo wery v. L ow ery , 25 So. 3d 274, 280 (Mi ss . 2009) . “ Thes e f ac tor co nside rati ons arenot only es se nti alfor appe ll at e pur

pose s, but a ls o for

tria l c ourt s, as they p rov ide a chec kli st to a ss is t in the a c c ura c y of

the i r r ul ings .” Id. Th is Co urt is o ne o f review , andthe trial co urt sh ou ld ge ne r a l ly g i vei t

ac om pl e t e ana lys i s t o re vi e w. T he t i m e betw een the entr y of t he def aul tj udgm entand the mot i on t o s etas i de 9 d e fa u lt w a s th re e an d o n e -h a lf m o n th s. H o w e v e r, th e h e a rin g in th is c a se d id n o t oc c u r u n til near l y t w o ye ar s l at er . The r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe hea r i ng w as del ayed be caus e both s i des agr eed t o engage i n s om e di s covery. A tany r at e, Tham es a nd Col l i ns do notappea rt o obj ect to th is d e la y , n o r d id th e y c h a ra c te ri z e it a s p re ju d ic ia l. 

### 16 f act or . T hames a nd C ol l i ns ar gue thati tw as noterr orf orthe cha ncel l ort o r ef r ai n f r om c o n sid e rin g th is p ro n g ; b u t, if it w a s e rro r, th a t e rro r w a s h a rm les s. T h e y a rg u e first th a t it w oul d be “i l l ogi cal ” f

ort he t r i al j udge t o consi dert hi s pr ong, havi ng al r eady de t erm i ned that t he f i r s tt w o pr ongs w ei ghed i n fa vorof Tham es and C ol l i ns . I n the al t ernat i ve, T hames a nd 8 C o lli n s a rg u e th a t th e fa ilu re to c o n sid e r th is p ro n g is h a rm le s s e rr o r, b e c a u se th e y w o u ld s uf f erpr ej udi ce w er e t he def aul tj udgm ents eta s i de. T hey cl ai m thatthey i ncurr ed “expe ns es i n pa yi ng the comm i s s i onert o r evi ew a l l the document s a nd t o e xecut e the dee d” an d clos ing cost s, and t hat t hey w i l l have i ncu rr ed t hese exp enses f or not hing i f t hey are f or ced go t o t r i al and t hen ul t i m at el y w i n on t he mer i t s . T hames a nd C ol l i ns ci t e no ca s el aw to b o ls te r t h e irp o s itio n th a t th is “ p re ju d ic e ” is s u ff

ic ie n t to u p h o ld a d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t. ¶2 5 . In th e c ase o f K

in g v. S i grest , a cas e about a l and di s pu t e, t he pl ai nt i f f s uf f er ed the p re ju d ic e o f a th ir ty -d a y d e la y i n th e p ro c e e d in g s . K in g v. S i grest , 641 So. 2d 1158, 1163 ( M i s s . 1994) . T hi s C our ts t at ed thati tw as “noti m pr es s ed” by the pr ej udi ce s uf f er ed, as t he m ot i on to setas i de the def aul tw as pr om ptand r es ul t ed i n l i t t l e del ay. I d. at1163. 9 Fur t herm or e, i tnot ed that“[ t ] he l and i s notgoi ng aw ay and the cont es t ant s had bee n

### 17

nei ghbor s f

oryear s . ” I

d. Si m i l ar l y, the l and i n t hi s cas e i s notgoi ng aw ay. A ddi t i onal l y, w hi l e Tham es and C ol l i ns bemo an thei rcos t s pai d, they f ai l t o pl ace i nt o the r ecor d t he am o u n t of th o se c o sts. Itis diff icult t o asse ss p rejud ice w ith o u t an y idea o f w h at m o n etary amount T hames and C ol l i ns cl ai m pre j udi ces t hem. A ddi t i onal l y, gi ven the pos s i bi l i t y t hat a val i d contr actdoes notex i sti n t hi s cas e, i ti s di f f i cul tt o compre hend how T hames a nd C o lli n s w o u ld b e p re

ju d ice d b y n o t re c e iv in g th a t to w h ich th e y m a y n o t b e e n tit led . A s in King , t he al l eged pr ej udi ce s uf f er ed by Tham es and C ol l i ns appea r s uni m pr es s i ve. A l t hough t he tr i al cour terr oneous l y fai l ed t o m ake f i ndi ngs on thi s f

act or , w e f

i nd t hatthi s pr ong fa v o rs W o o d ru ff. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 6 . W h ile th e “ g o o d c a u se fo r d e lay ” fa c to r fa v o rs T h a m e s a n d C o lli n s, th e c o lo ra b le def ens e and pr ej udi ce fact or s f avorW oodruf

f . T he cha ncel l orerr oneous l y r equi r ed W o o d ru ff

to p u t o n a “ c o m p e llin g d e fe n s e ,” w h ic h is a s tr ic te r r e q u ir e m e n t th a n “ c o lo ra b le .” M or eover , t he col or abl e def ens e f act ori s cons i der abl y s t r ong i n t hi s par t i cul arcas e, and that f act orcarr i es m or e w ei ghtt han do t he ot hert w o fa ct or s . D ef aul tj udgm ent s ar e notf avor ed i n t he l aw , and r eas onabl e doubts houl d be r es ol ved i n f avorof openi ng t he j udgm entand a llo w in g th e ca se to p ro c e e d o n th e m e rits. A b a lan c in g o f th e e q u iti e s in th is c a se c lea rly m a n d a tes th a t th e d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t sh o u ld b e se t as id e . T h u s, th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its di s c r e t i on b y de ny i ng the mot i on t o s e ta s i de the d e f a ul tj ud gmen t . The r e f

or e , t he t r i al court ’s judgm entdenyi ng t he mot i on t o s etas i de the def aul tj udgm enti s r ever s ed, and the case i s r em and ed to proceed o n the m eri t s. ¶ 2 7 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D.

### 18

W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P . JJ. , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.