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 2 0 2 3 - S CT
DA NNY HOL L AN

D
v. T HE P EOP L ESBA NK

& T RU S T COM P AN Y
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 09/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. L. J OSEPH LEE COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: P ANO LA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: RO BERT Q . W HI TW ELL AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : S CO T T R. HE NDR I X L. BRADLE Y DI LL ARD NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - T OR T S
- OT HE R T HAN P E RS ONAL I NJ UR Y & P RO P E RT Y DAMAGE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 11/ 2008 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 SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. D anny H ol l and f i l ed s ui tagai ns tR en a s a ntBankf / k/ a Peopl es B ank & T rus t C om pany on oraboutN ovember20, 1998, i n the C i r cui tC ourtf orthe Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof P a n o la C o u n ty , alle g in g n e g lig e n t and frau d u len t m isre p re se n tatio n , b re a c h o f fid u c iar y d u ty
an d b rea ch o f co v en an ts of g o o d faith an d fair d e a lin g . H o ll an d so u g h t com p en sato ry damages i n the amountof $5, 000, 000 and puni t i ve damages i n the amountof $10, 000, 000.

### So metimes spelled“Jeffries” in th e record . 1 

### 2 U p o n th e trial c o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f th e B a n k , H o llan d a p p e a led to
u s . F i n d i n g n o e r r o r , we a f f i r m. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. T he bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p betw een D anny H ol l and and R enas ant B ank f / k/ a Peopl es B ank & Trus tCom pa ny be ga n i n Fe brua ry 1 99 6. Betw e e n Fe brua ry a nd A pr i l 19 96 , t he B ank made var i ous l oans t o H ol l and ata t ot al of m or e t han t w o m i l l i on dol l ar s , al l of w hi ch
w e re c o llate ra lize d w ith re a l es tate , eq u ip m e n t, ca ttl e , an d h o rse s, a s w e ll as p ro p e rty in L a fa y e tte C o u n ty . T h is in c lu d e d a $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 re v o lv in g lin e o f c re d it th a t H o llan d so u g h t to us e f orexpens es as s oci at ed w i th hi s cot t on broke r age bus i nes s . T he par t i es di s put e w hether the B ank by and thr ough i t s empl oyee, W i l l i am Jef f r eys , al s o pr om i s ed t o l oan H ol l and 1 addi t i onal f

unds f orthe purpos e of

cover i ng m ar gi n cal l s i n comm odi t i es tr adi ng. H ol l and
c o n ten d s h e in fo rm e d W ill iam Je ffre y s th a t i n the ev e n t co tto n p ric e s d ro p p e d b e lo w e ig h ty cent s a pound, he w oul d need an addi t i onal $200, 000, fora t ot al l i ne of cr edi ti n the amount
o f $ 7 0 0 ,0 0 0 , fo r th e p u rp o se o f c o v e rin g m a rg in c a lls, an d th a t Je ffre y s o ra lly p ro m ise d to ext end the l i ne of

cr edi tf ort hatpurpos e. O n the otherhand, the B ank m ai nt ai ns thatH ol l and
as ked f ora n e xt ended l i ne of

c r edi ti n the amountof $100, 000 f

orthe purpos e of

cover i ng m arg in ca ll s, w h ich th e B an k d en ied d u e to H o ll an d n o t bein g ab le t o p rod u ce m o re col l at er al . A ddi t i onal l y, t he B ank cont ends thatJef f r eys di d nothave l oan author i ty f ors uch

### See26 U.S .C.A . §1 03 1 (S up p. 2 00 8). 2 

### 3 an amountand thata l oan i n t hi s am ountw oul d have had t o have been appr oved by t he B ank boar d. ¶3. H ol l and des i r ed t o s el l hi s Y ocona Bot t om L af ayett e C ounty prope r ty ( her ei naf t er the

“ L a fa y e tte C o u n ty p ro p e rty ” ). T h e b re a c h -o f-fid u c iar y -d u ty alle g a tio n s ste m fro m th e sa le of thi s pr operty. H ol l and had hoped t o arr ange w i th the bank a s ect i on1031 t ax bene f i tl and 2
sw a p w h e re in h e w o u ld fin d rep lac e m e n t pr o p e rty fo r th e Y o c o n a B o tto m p ro p e rty to a v o id
a capi t al ga i ns t ax. W i l l i am Jef f r eys , on behal f

of the B ank, w as t o actas es cr ow agentf or the tr ans act i on. T he B ank cont ends thatthi s agr eementw as negot i at ed, butw as never fin a lize d b e c a u se th e B a n k a sk e d f o r, b u t n e v e r re c e iv e d , m o re c o llate ra l fro m H o llan d to c ov e rthe a dd i t i on a l l oa n he n e e de d t o s e c ur e the r e pl a c e mentp r op e r ty. The Ban k f ur t her cont ends thatthe s al e pr ocee ds w er e r ece i ved by the B ank, butneverdepos i t ed i n an es cr ow acc ountbeca us e ther e w as no agr eem ent t o thatend. A ccor di ng t o the B ank, i thel d the chec k t o gi ve H ol l and opportuni ty t o pr oduce mor e col l at er al f orthe pr opos ed es cr ow exc ha ng e . W he n a dd i t i on a l c ol l a t e r a l di d n otmat e r i a l i z e , the Bank of f s e tthe $237, 000 agai ns tdebtow ed t o t hem by H ol l and, and H ol l and cl ai m s t hatt hi s act i on by the B ank w as a br eac h of

f i duci ary duty becaus e t hes e l oans w er e noti n def aul t . T he B ank cont ends t hat the Laf ayett e C ount y pr operty w as i t s col l at er al , and thatthe B ank w as m er el y of f s ett i ng t he pr ocee ds t o r el eas e the col l at er al . H ol l and as s ert s thatw i th no e xt ended l i ne of cr edi tand no

### 4

pr ocee ds f

r om the Laf

ayett e C ounty s al e, he w as una bl e t o c overhi s mar gi n cal l s , w hi ch l ed t o s i gni f i cantf i nanci al l os s es and l os s of goodw i l l i n hi s cott on br oker age e nt erpr i s e. ¶4 . H ol l and t hus sol d c ol l a t e r a l ( i . e . , c a t t l e ) w hi c h the Bankhe l d. The Bank , i n tur n, cons i der ed H ol l and t o have de f aul t ed on the t erm s of

hi s l oans . Su bsequ entl y, H ol l and
e n ter e d in to a w o rk o u t ag re e m e n t w ith th e B a n k to e x te n d th e lo a n s to g iv e h im tim e to l i qui dat e hi s as s et s t o pay dow n t he debt . H ol l and, by and thr ough couns el , negot i at ed and ent er ed i nt o a w or koutagr eementw i th the B ank, s i gned an a m ended pr om i s s ory not e, and then l at ers i gned a s econd a m ended pr om i s s ory not e. H ol l and eve ntual l y pai d of f the B ank. ¶5. H ol l and s ubs equent l y f i l ed s ui t agai ns t the B ank, al l egi ng i n hi s compl ai ntnegl i gent
m isre p re se n tatio n , fra u d u len t m isre p re se n tatio n , a n d b re a c h o f fid u c iar y re latio n sh ip . T h is C our tappoi nt ed Seni orS t atus Judge Rober tK enneth C ol eman as Speci al J udge t o pr es i de
a n d c o n d u c t all p ro c e e d in g s in th is c a s e . T h e B a n k filed a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t,
w hi ch w as deni ed by J udge C ol eman by w ay of an or derdat ed February 24, 2006, and ent er ed on M ar ch 3, 2006. T he B ank pet i t i oned thi s C our tf oran i nt er l ocut ory appea l , w hi ch
w as deni ed by a thr ee- j us t i ce p anel of

thi s C our tby or derent er ed on M ar ch 29, 2006. Renas ant

Bank v. Hol

land , 2006- M - 00436 ( M i s s . J une 29, 2006) . T her eaf t er , the B ank f

i l ed a M o ti o n for R ec o n side rati o n o f D en ial o f P eti ti o n for P erm issi o n to A p p ea l I n terl o cu tory O r der , w hi ch mot i on f

orr econs i der at i on w as deni ed by the en banc Courtby or derent er ed on J une 29, 2006. O n O ct ober12, 2006, J udge C ol eman r ecus ed hi m s el f f r om t he pr ocee di ngs . B y or derent er ed on J anuary 8, 2007, thi s C our tappoi nt ed J udge L. J os eph Lee, Pr es i di ng J udge of

the C our tof

A pp eal s of

M i s s i s s i ppi , as Speci al J udge t o pr es i de and

### 5

conductal l proc eedi ngs i n t hi s cas e. O n M ar ch 20, 2007, J udge Lee ent er ed an or ders et t i ng thi s cas e f

ort r i al on M ar ch 3, 2008. T he B ank, on J ul y 19, 2007, f i l ed anotherm ot i on as ki ng th e trial c o u rt to re c o n sid e r th e p re v io u sly -e n ter e d o rd e r d e n y in g su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. H ol l and obj ect ed t o the B ank’ s mot i on f orr econs i der at i on, a s s ert i ng: ( 1) the ca s e pr es ent ed g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a te ri a l f a c t; (2 ) th e B a n k ’s m o tio n w a s u n tim e ly filed p u rsu a n t to M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e 59( e) ; and ( 3) a s ucce s s orj udge w as precl uded f r om overrul i ng a pr i oror derent er ed by a pr edec es s orj udge. ¶6. J udge Lee r el i ed on Ma u c kv. Co lu m b u s H o te l Co ., 741 So. 2d 259 ( M i s s . 1999) , as the bas i s f

orhi s r econs i der at i on of J udge C ol eman’ s pr evi ous deni al of the B ank’ s m ot i on fors um m ary j ud gm ent i nsom uch as Mauckstoo d for the p rem ise th at a d en ial o f sum m ary j ud gm ent i s not a f

i nal j ud gm ent on t he m eri t s, no r i s i tbinding u p o n succe ssorcou rt s. Mauck , 741 So. 2d at268. T he tr i al j udge f ur therrul ed thatH ol l and had no ba s i s f orr el i ef underthe l aw gi ven thatt he pr om i s e t o l end m oney i n t he f utur e i s nota pas torpr es entf act and thus “nots uch a r epr es ent at i on as w i l l s uppor tr ecove ry undera theory of negl i gent
m i s r epr es ent at i on” ( quot i ng B ank of Shaw v. P os ey , 5 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 5 , 1 3 6 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). A s t o H ol l and’ s cl ai m t hatt he B ank’ s l oan of f i cer , W i l l i am Jef

f r eys , pr om i s ed hi m m oney beyon d t he t erm s of

H ol l and’ s w r i t t en contr actw i th the B ank, the tr i al courtf ound t hat H o ll an d ’s claim fail ed u n d er G odr ey, B as s ett & Kuykendal

l A r chitect

s, LTD . v. Huntington L um ber& Suppl

y Co. , 584 S o. 2d 1254, 1257 ( M i s s . 1991), becaus e w r i t t en contr act s cannot be al t er ed by pr i oror al agr eement s and bec aus e any pa r ol evi dence s ubm i t t ed t o vary t he
w r i t t en contr actt erm s i s i nadmi s s i bl e. T he t r i al cour tfurtherci t ed A ustin D eve lopm ent Co.

### 6

v. Ban k of

Mer idian , 569 So. 2d 1209 (M i s s . 1990) i n supportof the B ank’ s ar gum entthat H ol l and had w ai ved any caus e of a ct i on a gai ns tthe B ank by e xecut i ng t he w orkout agr eement s and amendm ent s t o hi s promi s s ory not es . A ddi t i onal l y, t he tr i al courtnot ed that H ol l and w a s u na bl e t o pr od uc e a ny e vi de nc e o f d a mage s t o hi s b us i ne s s whi c h c ou l d be at tri bu t ed to the B ank ’s act i on s. ¶7 . In i t s opi ni on, t he tr i a l c ou r tdi d n ots pe c i f i c a l l y a dd r e s s the c l a i m of br eac h of fi d u c ia ry d u ty re la tin g to th e fa ile d e s c ro w a g re e m e n t. DI S CU S S I ON ¶8 . H o ll a n d p re se n ts to this C o u rtfive issu es for o u r rev iew : (1) w h ethe r the tri al co u rt err ed i n gr ant i ng the B ank’ s mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent ; ( 2) w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n rul i ng thatH ol l and had w ai ved hi s cl ai m s by s i gni ng r enew al n ot es ; ( 3) w hetherthe
s ucce s s ortr i al j udge err ed i n gra nt i ng t he B ank’ s m ot i on f orr econs i der at i on of

a pr edec es s or j u d g e ’ s p r e v i o u s o r d e rd e n y i n g s u mma ry j u d g me n t ; ( 4 ) wh e th e rth e Ba n k wa i v e d th e c l a i ms in it s m o ti o n for rec o n side rati o n ; and (5) w h ethe r th e tr ial co u rterred in g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm entbeca us e othergenui ne i s s ues of mat er i al f

actw er e pr es entand s houl d have be en re so lv e d b y a ju ry . T o d a y ’s d isc u ss io n co m b in e s H o llan d ’s f irst a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r w ith h is f i f th a s s i gnm entof

e r r or , s i nce the i s s ue of da m ages di s cus s ed ther ei n r el at es ba ck t o t he
e le m e n ts o f b o th fr a u d u le n t a n d n e g lig e n t m is re p re s e n ta tio n .

### 7

I . W HE T HE R T HE T RI AL C OU RT E RR E D I N G RA NT I NG T HE BANK ’ S M OTI ON FOR SUM M ARY J UDG M ENT. ¶9. I n r evi ew i ng a tr i al c our t ’ s de ci s i on t o gr ants um m ary j udgm ent , thi s C our tus es a de
novo s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . Fran klin C ou n t y Mem 'l Hosp. v. Miss. Farm B u reau Mu t . Ins. Co. , 975 So. 2d 872, 874 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng Cal li cutt v. P r of'l Ser vs . of

P ott s Cam p, I nc. , 9 7 4 S o . 2 d 2 1 6 , 2 1 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 )). T h e e v id e n c e m u st b e v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le t o the non -m ov i ng party an d if , in t his v i ew , the m ov i ng p arty is enti t l ed to a j ud gm ent as a m att erof l aw , then s um m ary j udgm ents houl d be gr ant ed i n hi s fa vor . O therw i s e, the mot i on s h o u ld b e d e n ie d . P a lm e r v . A n de rs o n In firm a ry B e n e v o len t A ss 'n , 65 6 So . 2d 79 0, 794 ( M i s s . 1995) ( ci t i ng Bro wn v. Cre dit Cente r , I nc ., 4 4 4 S o . 2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 3 )) . ¶ 1 0 . M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 6 (c ) sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: T he judgm ent s ou gh tshal l be r end ered f orthw i th i f the p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, answ ers t o int err og at ori es and ad m i ssi on s on fi l e, t og et her w i th the af fi dav i t s, i f any, s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o a ny m at er i al f actand thatthe mo v i n g p a r ty i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. A fa c t is m a te ri a l if

it " te n d s to r e s o lv e a n y o f t h e is s u e s p ro p e rl y ra is e d b y th e p a rt ie s ." Sim ps on v. B oyd , 880 So. 2d 1047, 1050 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng P al m er , 6 5 6 S o . 2 d at 79 4 ). E v e n w h e re th e trial c o u rt fin d s th a t th e re is n o th in g b e fo re it th a t in d ica tes a g e n u in e d isp u te of m at er i al fa ctand fi nds t hatt he m ovanti s otherw i s e ent i t l ed t o s um m ary j udgm ent , the tr i al
c o u rt m a y “ n e v e rth e les s b e jus tified in d e n y in g su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w h e n , in its v iew , a fu ll
e x p o s itio n o f th e fa c ts m a y re s u lt in a tria b le iss u e o r is w a rr a n te d in th e in te re s t o f j u s tic e .” G r eat Souther n N

at ’l B ank v. Minter , 590 So. 2d 129, 135 ( M i s s . 1991) ( quot i ng B r ow n v. Mc Q uinn , 5 9 0 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 8 , 1 0 9 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )).

### The parol evi denc e rul e “s ee ks to pre se rve[the ] inte gri ty of writte n agr ee me nts by 3 

### re fus ing t o per

mi t c ontrac ting parti es to att em pt t o alte r [the] impor

t of the ir contra ct through [the] useof c onte mporane ous oraldec larati ons. ” Bl ac k’s Law Di ctionary 1006 ( 5th e d. 19 79 ). See a lso Hearts outh, PLLC v. Boyd, 86 5 S o. 2 d 1 09 5, 1 10 7 -0 8 ( M iss. 20 03 ). 8 ¶11. H ol l and cont ends he i nf or m ed Je f

f r eys t hat , i n t he eventcot t on pri ces dr opped bel ow ei ghty c ent s a pound, he w oul d ne ed an a ddi t i onal $200, 000 ( f ora t ot al of

a $700, 000) l i ne o f c r e d i t , f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

c o v e r i n g ma r g i n c a l l s i n c o mmo d i t i e s tr a d i n g . He f u r th e rc l a i ms thatJ ef f r eys or al l y pr om i s ed t o ext end the l i ne of cr edi tan addi t i onal $200, 000 t o cover m ar gi n cal l s . H ol l and mai nt ai ns that w hen cott on pr i ces di d dr op, hi s bus i nes s s uf f er ed l os s es due t o t he B ank’ s negl i gentand f r audul entm i s r epr es ent at i ons r egar di ng hi s l i ne of
cr edi t . O n t he otherhand, t he B ank mai nt ai ns thatH ol l and as ked f oran ext ended l i ne of
cr edi ti n the amountof

$100, 000 f

orthe purpos e of

cover i ng m ar gi n cal l s , w hi ch the B ank deni ed due t o H ol l and notbe i ng a bl e t o pr oduce m or e col l at er al . T he B ank f ur thercont ends thatJ ef f r eys di d nothave the authori t y t o ei t her gr antordeny a $200, 000 ext ended l i ne of
cr edi tand thats uch ac t i on had t o be pr es ent ed t o the B ank boar d f orcons i der at i on. A ddi t i onal l y, the B ank cont ends thatH ol l and k new ors houl d r eas onabl y have know n t hat J ef f r eys l acke d thi s author i ty. Fur therm or e, the B ank cont ends t hatH ol l and ca nnotr ecove r bas ed on f

utur e pr om i s es f

oran ext ended l i ne of

c r edi t , norc an any or al a gr eemental t ert he f ourcorner s of

the w r i t t en contr actunderthe par ol evi dence rul e. 3 ¶1 2. T he t r i al cour trul e d tha tHol l a nd’ s c l a i m of n e gl i ge ntm i s r epr es ent at i on f ai l ed beca us e a pr om i s e t o l end money i s nota pas torpr es entexi s t i ng f actbuta “prom i s e of

### 9

future con du ct ” and as such i s “not s uch a repr esent at i on as w i l l supp ortrecovery u n d er a t heo ry of

negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on. ” B ank of Shaw v. P os ey , 57 3 So . 2d 13 55 , 13 60 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ); see al

so Mor an v. Fair ley , 919 S o. 2d 969 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005) . A l though the tri al co u rtd id n o t spe cifi ca ll y a d d ress the claim o f f r audul ent

m isre p re se n tatio n , the ru le i s th e s a me . I n c a s e s o f f r a u d , r e l i e f

c a n n o tb e b a s e d o n f

u tu r e p r o mi s e s , “ e x c e p ti n s o me cas es w hen a c ontr actual pr om i s e i s m ade w i th t he presentundi s cl os ed i nt ent i on of not per f or m i ng i t . ” B ank of

Shaw , 573 So. 2d at1360. H ol l and ci t es K i ddv. K idd , 21 0 M i ss. 465, 49 So. 2d 824, 827 (1951) , fort he s ame pr emi s e i n s uppor tof hi s ar gum entthatJ ef

f r eys p r o mi s e d h i m th e e x t e n d e d l i n e o f c r e d i twi th th e u n d i s c l o s e d i n t e n tn o tt o p e r f o r m. ¶13 . In o rder t o recover u nd er a theo ry o f fr aud ulent m i sr epresent at i on , a plai nti ff m ust p ro v e , b y c lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e , the fo llo w in g e lem e n ts: ( 1 ) a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ; ( 2 ) i t s f a l s i ty ; ( 3 ) i t s m a t e r i a l i t y ; ( 4 ) th e s p e a k e r 's k n o w led g e o f its fa lsity o r ig n o ra n c e o f th e tru th ; (5 ) h is in ten t th a t i t sh o u ld be ac t ed on by the hea r erand i n t he mannerr eas onabl y cont empl at ed; ( 6) the h e a re r' s ig n o ra n c e o f its fa lsity ; (7 ) h is re lian c e o n its tru th ; (8 ) h is rig h t to re ly ther eon; and ( 9) hi s cons equentand pr oxi m at e i nj ury. B ank of Shaw v. P os ey , 573 S o. 2d 1355, 1362 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t i ng Eze l l v. Robbins , 533 S o . 2 d 4 5 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); Ma rtin v. W in fie ld , 4 5 5 S o . 2 d 7 6 2 , 7 6 4 ( M iss . 1 9 8 4 ); Fra n k lin
v. Lov itt Equi p. Co. , I nc . , 420 So. 2d 1370, 1373 ( M i s s . 1982)) . E ven i f t he f act s as es pous ed by H ol l and w er e acc ept ed as t rue, t he r ecor d re veal s thatH ol l and i s unabl e t o m ake a cl ear and convi nci ng s how i ng thatJ ef f r eys w as aw ar e thatt here w ou l d be no ext ended l i ne of
cre d it , y et pro m ised H o ll an d the $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 . A s to the all eg ed m isr ep rese n tat ion , H o ll an d ’s cont ent i on thatJ ef

f r eys pr om i s ed hi m the $200, 000 i s fl at l y deni ed by Je f f r eys and the B ank.

### 10

H ol l a nd a dmi t s tha tthe r e was n e ve ra n a c tua l a gr e e mentt o e xt e nd the l i ne o f c r edi tby $200, 000. H e s t at es thathe t ol d J ef f r eys he m i ghtne ed the m oney ata f utur e dat e bas ed on the cott on m arket . Fur therm or e, H ol l and w oul d have t o pr ove thathe had a r i ghtt o r el y on s uch a f al s ehood. H ow ever , H ol l and s houl d have r eas onabl y know n thatJ ef f r eys l acke d author i ty t o l end thata m ountof money and thatany l oan pr opos al s w oul d have t o be br ought bef or e the B ank’ s boar d. ¶1 4. A bs e nt a s ho w i ng of f r a ud , the tr i a l c ou r t w a s e mi ne nt l y c orr e c t i n f i ndi ng t hatt he
w ri tte n lo a n a g re e m e n t c o u ld n o t b e a lte re d b y p ri o r o ra l a g re e m e n ts . See G o d fre y, B a ss e tt, & Kuykendal

l A r chitect

s, L T D . v. Huntington L um ber& Suppl y Co. , 584 S o. 2d 1254, 1 2 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ); see al so Fr anklin v. Lovitt

Equ i pm ent Co. , 42 0 S o. 2d 13 70 , 13 72 (M i ss. 1982) . Fur therm or e, thi s Courtha s he l d: “ [ A ] pe r s on i s underan obl i gat i on t o r ead a contr act bef or e s i gni ng i t , and w i l l notas a gen er al rul e be he ar d t o compl ai n of an or al
m is re p re s e n ta ti o n t h e e rr o r o f w h ic h w o u ld h a v e b e e n d is c lo s e d b y re a d in g th e c o n tr a c t.” Stephens v. E quitable L i f e A s s urance S oc'

y of the U nited States , 850 So . 2d 78 , 82 (M i ss. 2003) ( quot i ng G o d

fre y, 58 4 S o. 2d at1257) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he l oan agr eement pr ovi ded f

ora $500, 000 l i ne of

c r edi t , a nd the tr i al c our tdi d noterri n f i ndi ng thatany pr i or or al agr eementthatatt empt s t o al t erthi s w r i t t en agr eementi s i nadmi s s i bl e. ¶15. In th e a lt ern at i ve, H oll and ar gu es that, i f no tf raudulent, then Jeffrey s’s
m i s r epr es ent at i on w as negl i gent . T hi s C our thas di s t i ngui s hed f r audul entr epr es ent at i on and negl i gentr epr es ent at i on:

### 11

T he bas i s f

ordam ages re s ul t i ng fr om negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on i s the l ack o f c a re ; t h e b a s is fo r d a m a g e s re s u ltin g fr o m fr a u d is th e w a n t o f h o n e s ty . See R e sta tem e n t o

f th e L a w o

f T o rts ( Second) s ect i ons 549 and 5 52 ( 1977) . T he lac k o f c a re in n e g lig e n t m isre p re se n tatio n a n d th e w a n t o f h o n e sty in f r audul ent m i s r epr es ent at i on i n bus i nes s tr ans act i ons gi ve r i s e t o di s t i nct caus es of act i on, the one i n t or t , the otheri n f r aud. Ba n ko f S h a w, 573 So. 2d at1360 ( quot i ng Firs t Money, I

nc. v. Fr is by , 3 6 9 S o . 2 d 7 4 6 , 7 5 0 (M iss . 1 9 7 9 )). In o rd e r to e sta b lish n e g lig e n t m isre p re se n tatio n , the fo llo w in g e lem e n ts
m u st b e p ro v e n : ( 1) a mi s r epr es entat i on orom i s s i on of a f act ; ( 2) thatthe r epr es ent at i on or om i s s i on i s m at er i al ors i gni f i cant ; ( 3) t hatt he per s on/ ent i ty char ged w i th the n e g lig e n c e fa iled to e x e rc ise th a t d e g re e o f d ili g e n c e a n d e x p e rtise th e p u b lic is e n tit led to e x p e c t o f su c h p e rso n s/e n tit ies ; (4 ) th a t th e p lain tiff re a so n a b ly reli ed u p o n the m isr ep rese n tat ion o r om issi o n ; and (5) tha t th e p lai n ti ff s uf f er ed damages a s a di r ecta nd pr oxi m at e r es ul tof s uch r eas onabl e r el i ance . Hor ace M

ann L i f e I ns. Co. v. Nunaley , 960 So. 2d 455, 461 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Skrm e tta v. Bayv ie w Y ac ht Club, I nc . , 80 6 S o. 2 d 11 20 , 1 12 4 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 )). H a zle h u rs t L u m b e r C o . v. Miss . Fo re str y Co m m 'n , 983 S o. 2d 309, 313 ( M i s s . 2008). T he
a fo re m e n tio n e d e le m e n ts m u s t b e p ro v e n b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e . B ank of Shaw , 573 So. 2d at1360. A s w as the ca s e w i th the fr aud ul ent - m i s r epr es ent at i on al l egat i on, H ol l and w as unabl e t o s how thathe r eas onabl y coul d have r el i ed on any assert i ons by J ef f r eys thatan addi t i onal $200, 000 l i ne of cr edi tw oul d be forthcomi ng, gi ven thatJ ef f r eys l acke d actual and appa r entauthor i ty t o appr ove a l oan agr eementof s uch f i nanci al
m agni tude. ¶1 6. O n t he i s s ue of damages , t he t r i al c ou r th e l d thatH ol l and f ai l ed t o pr oduce d o c u m e n tatio n in su p p o rt o f h is c laim th a t th e B a n k ’s r e fu sa l to g ra n t h is lo a n re su lted in

### 12

l os s es t o hi s cott on and f arm i ng bus i nes s . H ol l and ar gues thatthe t es t i m ony of hi s acc ount ant
w oul d es t abl i s h thatthe B ank’ s al l eged mi s appr opr i at i on of the $237, 000 i n pr ocee ds f r om the Laf ayett e C ount y l and s al e ca us ed hi m t o s uf f ers ever e monet ary damages . H ol l and fu rt h e r a rg u e s th a t c a u s a l c o n n e c tio n is a q u e s tio n o f f a c t t o b e d e te rm in e d b y a ju ry . See
e. g. , G lo v e rv. J

a c ks o n S ta te U

n iv ., 968 So. 2d 1267, 12 77 (M i ss. 2007) . C aus at i on and damages ar e buttw o el ement s of H ol l and’ s cl ai m s . A s di s cus s ed pr evi ousl y, H oll and has fai l ed to est abli sh r easona ble rel i ance o n an y asser t i on s by B ank em ployee W i l l i am Jef fr eys. T her ef or e, the tr i al courtdi d noterri n f i ndi ng as a mat t erof

l aw thatH oll and w as not enti t l ed to r ecov ery of m on et ary dam ages. ¶17. A s t o t he cl ai m of br eac h of f i duci ary dut y, H ol l and f ai l s t o show t hat t here w as an esc row ag ree m en t th at w o u ld im p o se a fi d u ciary d u ty o n the B an k o r i ts ag en t. T h is C o u rt has st at ed the f

oll ow i ng regar ding fi du ci ary r el at i on shi ps: A lth o u g h ev ery co n tr a c tu a l ag ree m en t do es n o t give ri se to a fidu ciary r el at i ons hi p, i n M i s s i s s i ppi s uch a r el at i ons hi p m ay exi s tundert he f ol l ow i ng ci rcum st ances: (1 ) th e a c tiv iti e s o f th e p a rties g o b e y o n d th e ir o p e ra tin g o n th e ir ow n behal f

, and the ac t i vi t i es [ ar e] for t he benef i tof both; ( 2) w her e the p a r t i e s h a ve a c omm on i nt e r e s ta nd p r of i tf r om t he act i vi t i es of

the other ; ( 3) w her e the p art i es r epos e trus ti n one another; and ( 4) w her e one pa r ty has dom i ni on orcontr ol over the o ther. R o b ley v. B lu e Cro ss

/B lu e S h ield , 935 So. 2d 990, 995 (M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng U ni v. Nurs ing A s s ocs . , P

L L C v. P hil li ps , 8 4 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); Car te rEqui p. Co. v. Jo hn D eer e I ndus. E qui

p. Co. , 6 8 1 F .2 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 2 )) . T h e B a n k a rg u e s th a t th is

### 13

es cr ow agr eementw as m er el y a pr opos ed agr eementthatthe B ank r ej ect ed on t he bas i s t hat H o ll an d co u ld n o t pro d u ce m o re c o ll ateral. T h is C o u rtis un a b le to fin d from the re co rd bef or e us any of

t he r equi s i t e el ement s fora f i duci ary r el at i ons hi p w her e H ol l and has f ai l ed to p ro d u c e e v id e n c e th a t th e a g re e m e n t ex iste d . It is u n d isp u ted tha t H o llan d so ld p ro p e rty thatw as the B ank’ s c ol l at er al , a nd thatthe B ank of f s etH ol l and’ s debtow ed t o them w i t h the
s al es pr ocee ds . U nderthe hol di ng i n W ise v . Valle

y Bank , 8 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ), unl es s t her e w as an agr eementt o the contr ary, the r el at i ons hi p betw een H ol l and and the B ank
w as one of

debt or/ cr edi t or . A s t o the duty ow ed by banks , thi s C our thel d i n W ise : “The r el at i ons hi p betw een a bank and a de pos i t or , w i thoutan agr eementt o the contr ary, i s s i m pl y one of de bt ora nd c r edi t or , a nd a de pos i ti s not , or di nar i l y, a trus tf und. ” D epo sit

G u ar. B an k & T

rust Co. v. Mercha n t

s' B an k & T

rust Co. , 171 M i s s . 553, 158 So. 136, 137 ( 1934) ( ci t i ng Mo re la n d v. P e o p le 's B an k o f W ayn esboro , 114 M i s s . 203, 263, 74 So. 828 ( 1917) ) . Fur therm or e, w e h a v e fo u n d th a t th e re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n a b a n k a n d its d e p o sito r is g e n e ra lly n o t a fi d u c ia ry o n e . Mer chant s & P lanters B ank of

R aym on d v. W il liam s on , 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). W ise , 861 So. 2d at1033. Logi cal l y, “[ t ] he exi s t ence of a f i duci ary duty m us tbe es t abl i s hed bef or e a br eac h of

thatduty can a r i s e. ” Mer chant s & Planters B ank v. W il liam s on , 691 So. 2d 398, 403 ( M i s s . 19 97) ( ci t i ng L ow er y v. G uar. B ank and T r ust Co. , 592 So. 2d 79, 83 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). ¶18. A s s um i ng ar

guendo that H ol l and coul d es t abl i s h a pr i m e f aci e cas e of f

r audul entor negl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on o r brea ch of f i duci ary duty, thos e cl ai m s w oul d be dee m ed
w ai ved bas ed on H ol l and’ s s i gni ng the r enew al not es and part i ci pat i ng i n the w or kout agr eementw i th the B ank, as di s cus s ed i nfr a in H o lla n d ’s s e c o n d a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r.

### 14

¶19. Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed, w e f i nd thes e combi ned as s i gnm ent s of err ort o be w i thout
m e rit. I I . W HETHER THE TR I AL COURT ER RE D I N RUL I NG THAT

HOL L AN D H AD W AI VE D H I S CL AI M B Y V I RT UE OF SI G N I N G R EN EW A L N O TE S. ¶ 2 0 . H o llan d a rg u e s th a t th e w o rk o u t ag re e m e n t p e rta in e d to o th e r lo a n s a n d d id n o t re late t o the B ank’ s al l eged mi s appr opr i at i on of the $237, 000 f

r om t he Laf

ayett e C ounty l and s al e. T her ef or e, acc or di ng t o H ol l and, the tr i al c our te rr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm entbas ed
o n its v iew th a t H o llan d h a d w a iv e d h is c laim s b y p a rticip a tin g in th e w o rk o u t a g re e m e n t, because o nly a j ury coul d m ake a f actual f i ndi ng as t o the agr eement ’ s t erm s . T he B ank
a rg u e s th a t all po ss ib le d e fe n se s a n d cla im s re latin g to th e n o tes a n d o th e rw ise a v a ilab le to H ol l an d w e r e wai ve d a tthe t i me Hol l a nd r e ne w e d the p r omi s s ory no t e s a nd s i gned t he
w o rk o u t ag re e m e n t. ¶21. T he tr i al courtci t ed A ustin D eve lopm ent Co. , I nc. v. B ank of

Mer idian , 569 So. 2d 1 2 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ) in su p p o rt o f it s g ra n tin g the B a n k ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th is i s s ue. I n A u stin , A u stin D . C h e c k w a s in d e b ted to B a n k o f M e rid ian fo r a p p ro x im a tely $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 . Id . a t 1 2 1 0 . C h e c k re q u e ste d a $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 lo a n fr o m th e B a n k to fin a n c e a re a l es tate d e v e lo p m e n t th a t w a s to b e fin a n c e d b y R o n a ld E v a n s. T h e B a n k re q u e ste d m o re c o llate ra l, and Evans pr ovi ded C heck w i th a l ett erof cr edi ti n the amountof

$50, 000 dr aw n on V al l ey V ie w B a n k . Id . C heck as s i gned t he l ett erof cr edi tt o t he B ank so thati tcoul d be col l ect ed
o n s h o u ld th e lo a n e v e r b e in d e fa u lt. Id . E v e n tu a lly C h e c k ’s lo a n a m o u n t in c re a se d to $110, 000, as di d the l ett erof cr edi tpr ovi ded by E vans . W hen the l oan matur ed on Sept ember

### 15

3 , 1 9 8 5 , itw en t un p aid. T h e lett er o f cred itw as se t to ex p ir e S ep tem b er 9, 19 8 5 ; ho w ev er, B a n k o f M e ri d ia n fa ile d to c o lle c t o n th e le tte r o f c re d it u n til S e p te m b e r 1 2 , 1 9 8 5 . I d. V al l ey V i ew B ank r ef

us ed t o pay on the expi r ed l ett erof c r edi t , and B ank of

M er i di an thr eat ened
c o llec tio n u n les s C h e c k re n e w e d th e n o te in th e p rin c ip a l am o u n t o f $ 1 1 0 ,0 0 0 . Id . W hen th e lo a n w a s a g a in in d e fa u lt, th e B a n k o f M e rid ian b ro u g h t su it a g a in st C h e c k a n d h is
c o m p a n y . B a n k o f M e rid ian w a s g ra n ted su m m a ry jud g m e n t by th e trial c o u rt o n th e b a sis thatt he def

endant s had l egal l y w ai ved any def ens e t o t he not es and any ot herpos s i bl e ca us es o f a c tio n a v a ila b le a t th e tim e th e re n e w a l n o te s w e re e x e c u te d a n d th e in te re s t w a s p a id . Id . at1211. Sum m ary j udgm enti n the Austin c a se w a s a ffirm e d b y th is C o u rt b a se d o n th e ru le pr om ul gat ed i n Citi

z ens N ati onal B ank v. W

alt m an , 3 4 4 S o . 2 d 7 2 5 (M is s . 1 9 7 7 ), B ric k e ll
v. Firs t N ati onal B ank, 373 So. 2d 1013 ( M i s s . 1979) , and Tu rn e r v . W a k e fie ld , 481 So. 2d 846 ( M i s s . 1985) , thatr enew al of the not e cons t i tut ed a w ai verof al l cl ai m s agai ns tthe bank, i ncludi ng the cl ai m o f negli gen tim pairm ent al l eged l y cau sed by the B ank of M eri dian’ s l oss o f th e $ 1 1 0 ,0 0 0 c o lla te ra l e n tru s te d to it b y th e d e fe n d a n ts . Id . a t1212. I n A u stin , the C o u rt al s o ci t ed G ay v. Firs t

N ati ona l Bank , 172 M i s s . 681, 160 So. 904 (1935) , w hi ch s t ood f or the pr emi s e that“[ w ] her e a party ha s f ul l know l edge of

a l l de f ens es t o a not e and e xecut es a new not e paya bl e ata f utur e dat e, he then w ai ves a l l hi s de f ens es a nd becomes obl i gat ed t o pay the new not e. ” Id . ( quot i ng G ay , 1 7 2 M iss. at 68 6 , 1 6 0 S o . at 90 5 ). ¶22. U ndert he hol di ngs i n A u stin and i t s pr ogeny, as s um i ng ar guendo th a t th e tru e fa c ts
a re a s a ss e rte d b y H o llan d , the trial c o u rt d id n o t err in fin d in g th a t H o llan d h a d w a iv e d h is cl ai m s by ent er i ng i nt o the w or koutagr eementand by s i gni ng the r enew al not es . T he

### 16

l ang uage i n A u stin i s c l e a rtha tb y s i gn i ng r e ne w a l n ot e s , the d e f e nd a nt s i n tha tc a s e had
w a iv e d n o t on ly d e fe n se s to th e n o tes b u t “a n y p o ss ib le c a u se s o f a c tio n o th e rw ise a v a ilab le to th e d e fe n d a n ts ” a g a in s t th e B a n k , in c lu d in g th e n e g lig e n c e c la im . Austin, 569 So. 2d at 1 2 1 1 . A u stin is a p p lica b le to to d a y ’s c a se in so m u c h a s a ll p o ss ib le c laim s th a t H o llan d c o u ld have ha d agai ns tthe B ank, i ncl uding t he negl i gence cl ai m , w er e w ai ved by the w or kout agreem ent and renew al no t es. ¶ 2 3 . W e th u s fi n d , fo r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d , th a t th is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r h a s n o m e ri t. III . W H E T H E R T H E S U C C E S S O R T R IA L JU D G E E R R E D IN G R A N T I N G T H E B A N K ’ S MOT I O N F O R RECO NSI DERATI O N O F AN EARLI ER J UDG E’ S OR DER DENYI NG S UM M ARY J UDG M ENT. ¶24. H oll and co ntends t hat t he t ri al co urterr ed i n grant i ng the B ank’ s M ot i on f or R econs i der at i on of

O r derD enyi ng Sum m ary J udgm ent , gi ven thatJ udge C ol eman al r eady had ent er ed an or derdenyi ng summ ary j udgm entand gi ven t hatJudge Lee al r eady ha d s et th e d a te f

o r tria l. In su p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t, H o llan d p o in ts to M is s is s ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 6 0 (b )(6 ), w h ich sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: O n m o tio n a n d u p o n su c h ter m s a s a re ju st, th e c o u rt m a y re liev e a p a rty o r h is l egal r epr es ent at i on f

r om a fi nal j udgm ent , or der , orpr ocee di ngs f orthe fo llo w in g re a so n s:

. . . . (6 ) a n y o th e r r e a s o n ju s tif y in g re lie f f

ro m th e ju d g m e n t. H ol l and cl ai m s t hatsi nce no ot hersubpar agr aph of R ul e 60( b) appl i es (i . e. , fr aud, acc i dent
orm i s t ake, et c. ) and no new evi dence w as putf or th by the B ank thatw oul d j us t i f y r el i ef , t he
or i gi nal or derdenyi ng s um m ary j udgm entent er ed by J udge C ol eman shoul d s t and.

### 17

¶25. T he B ank co nt e nd s thatJ udge Lee w as notbound by J udge C ol eman’ s pr evi ous deni al
o f i t s mo t i o n f

o rs u mma r y j u d g me n t . T h i s i s s u e i s l a i d t o r e s tb a s e d o n o u rp r i o rc a s e l a w. “A n or derdenyi ng s um m ary j udgm enti s nei ther fi nal norbi ndi ng upon the courtor s ucce s s orcourt s . ” Mauck v. Colum bus H otel Co. , 741 So. 2d 259, 268 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng G r eat So. N at ’l B ank v. Minter , 5 9 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 3 , 1 3 5 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 )) . M o re o v e r, “ [a ]t th e p o in t o f fin a l d e c isio n o n th e m e rits [th e tri a l j u d g e ] w a s d u ty b o u n d to a p p ly th e law to th e re c o rd th e n b e fo re th e c o u rt , r e g a rd le s s o f a n y p ri o r r u lin g d e n y in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.” Id . at 2 6 8 -6 9 . In o th e r w o rd s, th e law -o f-th e -c a se d o c trin e , w h e re in a su c c e ss o r ju d g e is pr ecl uded f

r om corr ect i ng err or s of l aw m ade by the pr edec es s orj udge orf r om r evi s i ng t he pr edec es s orj udge’ s or derorj udgm enton i t s mer i t s , ha s no appl i cabi l i ty w her e the or deror ju d g m e n t is n o t o f a fi n a l c h a ra c te r. Mauck , 7 4 1 S o . 2 d at 26 8 . T h is i s true e v en w h ere there h a s b e e n a n in ter v e n in g d e n ial o f a p e tit io n f o r p e rm iss io n to file a n in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l, given t hat this C ou rt ’s denial of an i nter l ocu t ory appe al i s no ta fi nal j ud gm ent on t he m eri t s. Id . ¶26. T hus , H ol l and’ s r el i ance on M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e o f Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) ( 6) i s m i s pl ace d i n thatthe rul e appl i es onl y w her e t he j udgm entor or deri s f i nal . I n acc or dance w i th Mauck , an or derdenyi ng a mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entis n ot a f i nal j udgm ent . Forthe r eas ons s t at ed, J udge Lee w as a ct i ng w i thi n hi s a uthor i ty a s tr i al j udge i n cons i der i ng and gr ant i ng the B ank’ s M ot i on f

orR econs i der at i on of

O r derD enyi ng Sum m ary J udgm ent . A ccor di ngl y, th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit.

### 18

I V. W HE T HE R T HE B AN K P RE VI OU S L Y H AD W AI VE D T HE C L A I M S P R E S E N T E D I N I T S M O T I O N F O R RE CONS I DE RAT I ON. ¶27. Fi nal l y, H ol l and ar gues that i t w as err or f or J udge L ee t o t ake up the B ank’ s m ot i on f orr econs i der at i on beca us e the mot i on w as f i l ed se vent een m onths af t erthe entry of

J udge C o lem an ’s ord er d en y ing the B a n k ’s p rev iou s m o ti o n an d elev en m o n ths a ft er this C o u rt deni ed the B ank’ s i nt er l ocut ory appea l . Fur therm or e, H ol l and cont ends thatthe B ank w as di l at ory i n f

i l i ng i t s m ot i on and thats uch del ay s houl d be hel d t o cons t i tut e a w ai verof cl ai m s by t he B ank ( ci t i ng E a s t Mis s is s i p p iS ta te Ho s

p ita l v. A da ms , 947 So. 2d 887, 891 ( M i s s . 2007) ( f

ai l ur e t o t i m el y purs ue af f i r m at i ve def

ens e, t ogetherw i th act i ve part i ci pat i on in the li tig a tio n , se rv e d as a w a iv e r o f th e aff irm a tiv e d e fe n se )). See a lso M SCr e dit Ctr., I nc. v. Hor ton , 926 S o. 2 d 167, 181 ( M i s s . 2006) ( “abs entextr eme and unus ual ci r cumst ance s –an ei ghtm ont h unj us t i f i ed del ay i n the as s ert i on and pur s ui tof any af f i r m at i ve def

ense orotherr i ghtw hi ch, i f t i m el y pur s ued, coul d s erve t o t erm i nat e the l i t i gati on , cou pled w i th acti ve p art i ci pati on i n the l i t i gati on process, con st i tutes w ai ver as a m att er o f l aw . ”) (n . 9 o m itted). ¶28. T he B ank gi ves the fol l ow i ng t i m el i ne i n s uppor t of i t s as s ert i on that i t t i m el y f i l ed
a mot i on f

orr e c on s i de r a t i on . On J a nu a ry 8, 2 00 7, a n or de rwas e nt e r e d r e pl a ci ng J udge C o lem a n w ith Ju d g e L e e . R e n a sa n t firs t d is c u ss e d th e m o tio n fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n v ia te le p h o n e c o n fe re n c e w ith J u d g e L e e a n d H o lla n d in J a n u a ry 2 0 0 7 . O n J a n u a ry 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , a compl et ed, bound s etof al l pr i orpl eadi ngs w as pr epar ed forJ udge Lee f orthe purpos e of
r econs i der at i on of

the m ot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent . R enas antcaus ed tw o f actdepos i t i ons

### 19

t o be conduc t ed on A pr i l 26 and 27, 2007, ati t s expens e. I n M ar ch 2007, ther e w as a se cond t el ephone c onf

er ence among t he part i es and the tr i al j udge, w i th an orde rsett i ng t he cas e f or tr i al i m m edi at el y f

ol l ow i ng. T he B ank’ s M ot i on f orR econs i der at i on of

O r derD enyi ng S u m m a ry Ju d g m e n t w a s file d o n J u ly 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 . M S Cr edit Center , I nc. v. Hor ton , 926 So. 2 d 1 6 7 , 1 8 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ), als o sta n d s fo r th e p re m ise th a t w h e th e r a m o tio n is tim e ly is to be a d i scr et i on ary det erm i nati on and i s l eftt o the tr ial c o u rton “a case by case basi s”
c o n sid e rin g th e f

a c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s. T h u s, Ju d g e L e e w a s w e ll w ith in h is a u th o rity to cons i derand gr antthe mot i on. T hi s C our tha s he l d thatonl y “ [ t ] he comm ence m entof t r i al cl os es the s eas on forgr ant i ng m ot i ons f ors um m ary j udgm ent . ” Hurs t v. Sw . Mis s . L egal Ser vs . Cor

p. , 61 0 S o. 2d 37 4, 38 4 (M i ss. 19 92 ) ( ov erruled on o ther gr ou nd s) . E ven i n a case w h ere tri al w as a f

ew w eeks aw ay, this C ou rtup held a tri al cou rt ’s grantof sum m ary j udgm entas bei ng w i thi n the tr i al court ’s d i s cr et i on w her e the thr es hol d underR ul e 56( c)
w a s s a tis fi e d . N

oxubee Count

y Sch. D is t

. v. U nited N at ’l I ns. Co. , 883 So. 2d 1159, 1163 ( M i s s . 2004) . A ccor di ngl y, bas ed on ourdi s cus s i on o f t his i s s ue, w e f i nd thi s i s s ue t o be
w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶29. Fort he af

or ement i oned r eas ons , the gr antof s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof R enas ant B an k f/k/a P eo p les B an k & T rust C o m p an y an d ag ains t D an n y H o ll an d b y the C ir cu itC o u rt f orthe Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof Panol a C ounty i s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 3 0 . AF F I RM ED .

### 20

S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., D I C K I N S O N , R A N D O L P H A N D L A M A R , J J ., CO NCU R. GR AVES, J . , CO NCU RS I N RES ULT ONLY. EAS LEY, J . , DI S S ENTS W I T HOU T S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI AZ , P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .