I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 0 5 5 4 - CO A ER NE S T L ANE , I I I , AND T RUS TM ARK NA T I ON AL B AN K, CO - E XE CU T OR S OF T HE ES TA TE OF J AM ES OLDR UM S M I TH, J R. APP ELLANTS

v. RO NALD D . LAM PKI N APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 19/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. GEORGE W ARD CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: W ARREN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T S : H A R R IS H . B A R N E S III J . W I LLI A M S J A N O U SH ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: DA VI D W . M OC KB EE L A N D M A N T E L L E R J R . DA VI D W ESLE Y M OC KB EE CO LEM AN M CCA NN M OC KB EE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: AW AR DE D DAMAGE S F OR BR E AC H OF F I DUC I AR Y DUT Y AND U S UR P AT I ON OF A C OR PORA TE OPPORTU NI TY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 16/ 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 L E E , C . J. , C A R L T O N A N D M A X W E L L , JJ. CAR LTON, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s cas e addr es s es the val uat i on of a corpor at i on and the r el at ed aw ar d of damages
w hen one of

t he corpor at i on’ s tw o s har ehol der s di es and the r emai ni ng s har ehol derbegi ns a new corpor at i on t o oper at e the s ame r ock- s uppl y bus i nes s . I n the pr es entcas e, L i m es t one Pr oduct s I ncorpor at ed had onl y tw o s har ehol der s , Ronni e L ampki n and J
. O
. Sm i th J r . Pr i or t o Sm i th’ s death, L i m es t one oper at ed f ort en yea r s w i th a l i ne of cr edi tper s onal l y guar ant eed

### 2

by both s har ehol der s . H ow ever , u po n Sm i th’ s death, hi s es t at e ( the Est at e) r ef us ed L ampki n’ s r eques tt o ext end a gua r ant ee f orL i m es t one’ s cr edi tl i ne beyond D ece m ber2006. D u e to th e E sta te’ s re fu sa l to e x ten d the c re d it l in e , L im e sto n e lac k e d th e a b ili ty to o p e ra te and t o m eeti t s obl i gat i ons beyond D ece m ber2006. I n Janua ry 2007, L ampki n began a ne w c o rp o ra tio n , D e lta S to n e , w h ich c o n d u c ted th e sa m e ro c k -su p p ly o p e ra tio n s p re v io u sly pr ovi ded by Li m es t one. ¶2. G iving rise to the instan t ap p ea l, L am p k in fil ed a c o m p l ai nt f or a declar at ory j udgm entagai ns tE rnes tL ane I I I and Trus t m ark N at i onal B ank, as co- exec ut or s ( the E x ec u tors) of th e E stat e. L am p k in req u ested th at th e W arren C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rtd ec lare the f ol l ow i ng : thathe pos s es s ed the r i ghtt o i ndepende nt l y i nves ti n and oper at e a r ocks uppl y bus i nes s ; thathe vi ol at ed no corpor at e f i duci ary du t i es t o L i m es t one; thathe pos s es s ed the r i ghtt o cont i nue t o sel l L i m es t one’ s exi s t i ng i nvent ory; and t hathe poss es s ed the r i ghtt o cont i nue t o col l ectL i m es t one’ s acc ount s r ece i vabl e and appl y them t o the
corpor at i on’ s debt s . T he ci r cui tcourttr ans f err ed the mat t ert o chanc ery court . T he ch an ce ll o r fou n d that L am p k in b rea ch ed h is f idu ciary d u ty o f lo y alty b y u su rpa ti o n o f a
c o rp o r a t e o p p o r tu n i ty wh e n h e s t a r t e d De l t a S t o n e i n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 7 , wh i c h o p e r a t e d th e s a me ro c k -s u p p ly b u s in e s s a n d s e rv e d th e s a m e fu n c tio n a s L im e s to n e . ¶ 3
. A fte r d e ter m in in g li a b ili ty b a se d o n L a m p k in ’s b re a c h o f h is fid u c iar y d u ty o f lo y a lty and hi s us urpat i on of

a co rpor at e opportuni ty, the cha ncel l orthen addr es s ed and a w ar ded damages f

orthe of f endi ng c onduct
. I n s o doi ng, the chanc el l orde t erm i ned that , even a f t er e sta b lish in g a n e w c o rp o ra tio n a n d b o rro w in g $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 , L a m p k in c o n tin u e d to fu lfill a

### 3

contr acti ni t i at ed w i th L i m es t one and t o ens ur e thatthe profi t s w entt o L i m es t one. T he chanc el l oral s o det erm i ned thatL ampki n cr edi t ed Li m es t one w i th r ock pur chas ed or del i ver ed t o L i m es t one. A f t err evi ew i ng the evi dence , i ncl udi ng di f f er i ng t es t i m ony f

r om the part i es ’ expert s i n bus i nes s val uat i on, the cha ncel l oraw ar ded damages by cons i der i ng L i m es t one’ s netval ue as of D ece m ber31, 2006, a nd D ece m ber31, 2007, l es s expens es , but
w i th the adde d val ue of

the r emai ni ng corpor at e as s et s , s uch as an aged f r ont - end l oaderand
a h e a tin g a n d a ir-c o n d iti o n in g u n it. ¶4. U pon a ppel l at e r evi ew , w e f i nd that the ch ancell or’ s anal ysi s w as suppo rt ed by
ev iden ce in the rec o rd. I n ca lculati n g the a w ard o f da m ag es, th e c h an ce ll o r reli ed o n ex p ert opi ni ons and f

i nanci al report s t o as s es s the corpor at i on’ s netbook val ue and i t s t ot al net i ncome f or2008 thr ough 2012. T he cha ncel l ordet erm i ned the corpor at i on’ s t ot al netbook val ue t o be $125, 546. 32. B as ed on the i nf or m at i on pr ovi ded, the cha ncel l oral s o f ound L i m es t one’ s aver age ne ti ncome t o be $20, 91 4, w hic h amount ed t o a t ot al neti ncome of $104, 570 f

or2008 thr ough 2012. H ow ever , on appea l , the Execut or s s eek l os tpr of i t s i ns t ead of l os ti ncome. ¶5. In the co urtbelow , the E xecu t ors al so soug ht att orneys’ f ees and exp ert -w i tness fees , butthe cha ncel l ordeni ed the r eques tf orfe es , fi ndi ng thatL ampki n act ed w i thoutm al i ce or g ro ss n e g lig e n c e a n d d id n o t co m m it fra u d
. T h e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t, ev e n th o u g h L a m p k in
us urped a corpor at e opportuni ty, L ampki n bel i eved Li m es t one coul d notoper at e w i thoutthe lin e o f c re d it. T h e c h a n c e llo r a lso fo u n d c re d ib le L a m p k in ’s te stim o n y th a t th e E sta te
r ef us ed t o c ooper at e w i th gua r ant eei ng the l i ne of c r edi t . T he cha ncel l orf ur therf ound that

### 4

L ampki n act ed i n the i nt er es tof L i m es t one by compl et i ng the corpor at i on’ s contr act s and
accou nti ng fori t s prof

i t s and d ebts
. ¶6
. T h e E x ec u tors n o w ap p ea l the jud g m e n t ren d ere d b y the W arren C o u n ty C h an ce ry C our ti n as s es s i ng damages ow ed t o the E s t at e f orLam pki n’ s br eac h of f i duci ary duty and
us urpat i on of

a corpor at e opportuni ty. T he Execut or s appea l the aw ar d of dam ages by
r ai s i ng the f

ol l ow i ng is sues : ( 1) w hetherthe cha ncel l orerr ed by admi t t i ng and r el yi ng on t es t i m ony f

r om L ampki n’ s expert ; ( 2) w hetherthe chanc el l orpr oper l y a s s es s ed the amount
o f da m ag es d u e to the co rpo rati o n ; an d (3 ) w h ethe r the c h an ce ll o r erred b y refu sing to aw ard
a t t o rn e y s ’ f

e e s a n d e x p e r t - wi tn e s s f e e s . F i n d i n g n o e rr o ri n th e c h a n c e l l o r ’ s ru l i n g , we a ff ir m . FACTS ¶7. I n 1995, L ampki n and Sm i th f or m ed L i m es t one, w hich t hey op er at ed on l and they j oi nt l y ow ned i n W arr en C ounty. L ampki n and Sm i th eac h ow ned a one
- hal f i nt er es ti n the
corpo rat i on, w hi ch boughtand s ol d r ocks
. L ampki n al s o ow ned Lam pki n C ons truct i on,
w h ic h b e c a m e o n e o f L im e s to n e ’s b ig g e s t c u s to m e rs . ¶ 8
. F o r te n y e a rs , L im e sto n e o p e ra ted o n a lin e o f c re d it p e rso n a lly g u a ra n tee d b y b o th L am pk i n an d S m i th. T he li ne o f cr editw as sett o ex pir e i n S ep tem b er 2006
. In A ug ust 2 0 0 6 , S m ith d ied , an d h is s to c k in th e c o rp o ra tio n a n d h is in ter e st in th e re a l p ro p e rty tra n sfe rre d to th e E sta te. P rio r to th e e x p ira tio n o f L im e sto n e ’s lin e o f c re d it, L a m p k in
s ecur ed an e xt ens i on unt i l D ece m ber8, 2006, t o provi de t he E s t at e w i th t i m e t o det erm i ne
w hetheri tw oul d guar ant ee the l oan . B et w een Sept ember2006 and D ece m ber2006, the

### 5

pa r t i e s di s c us s e d r e ne w i ng the l i ne of c r e di t . H oweve r , the Es t a t e f a i l e d t o p r ovi de a guar ant ee be f

or e the dea dl i ne. L ampki n t hen f or m ed a new corpor at i on, D el t a St one, w hi ch began ope r at i ng i n J anuary 2007. D el t a St one per f or m ed the s ame f

unct i ons a s L i m es t one, a n d th ro u g h h is n e w co m p a n y , L a m p k in c o m p lete d L im e sto n e ’s c o n tra c ts a n d sa tisfie d its deb tob l i gati on s. ¶ 9
. L a m p k in fil e d a la w su it a g a in st t h e E x e c u to rs in W a rr e n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. L a m p k in a s k e d th e c irc u it co u rt to fin d th e fo llo w in g : (1 ) th a t L a m p k in h a d th e rig h t to i ndepende nt l y i nves ti n and oper at e a r ock- s uppl y busi nes s ; (2) t hathe w as noti n vi ol at i on of hi s f i duci ary dut i es as a di r ect or and of f i cerof L i m es t one; ( 3) thathe pos s es s ed the author i ty as an of

f i cerof L i m es t one t o cont i nue t o s el l the corpor at i on’ s e xi s t i ng i nvent ory, col l ectacc ount s re cei vabl e, and appl y the moni es r ece i ved t o the corpor at i on’ s debt ; and ( 4) thathe s houl d r ece i ve compens at i on f orhis acti on s and s houl d be pai d i nt er es ton any
m o n e tar y a d v a n c e s m a d e o n th e c o rp o ra tio n ’s b e h a lf. T h e E x e c u to rs f iled a c o u n ter c laim agai ns tL ampki n f

orpr es enta nd f

utur e pr of

i t s the corpor at i on l os tdue t o L ampki n’ s act i ons and f oratt orneys ’ f

ees . L ane, one of

the co- exec ut or s , al s o fi l ed a m ot i on t o tr ans f erthe
m a tte r t o W a rr e n C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt . ¶10
. T h e cir cuitcourtj ud ge entered an o rde r fi n d ing the m att er to b e p rop er fo r a decl ar at ory j udgm ent . Fur therfi ndi ng thatthe cha ncery courtpos s es s ed pr operj ur i s di ct i on overthe s ubj ectm att erof the dec l ar at ory-

j udgm entact i on, the ci r cui tcourtj udge gr ant ed the
m o tio n to tra n sfe r th e m a tter to c h a n c e ry c o u rt. In a n o rd e r e n ter e d b y the W a rre n C o u n ty C hancer y C our t , al l the cha ncel l or s r ecus ed themsel ves f r om the ca s e, and the M i s s i s s i ppi

### 6

S u p rem e C o u rtap p o inted a sp ec ial jud g e to p reside o v er the p roc ee d ing s. S ev era l of S m ith ’s benef i ci ar i es f i l ed a m ot i on t o i nt ervene i n the l aw s ui t , w hi ch t he s peci al l y appoi nt ed j udge g ra n te d
. ¶ 1 1
. L a mp k i n f

i l e d a mo t i o n f

o r s e p a r a t e tr i a l s o n th e i s s u e s o f l i a b i l i ty a n d d a ma g e s . He al s o as ked the cha ncel l ort o s t ay di s covery on damages pe ndi ng the out come on t he tr i al as t o l i abi l i ty. T he cha ncel l orgr ant ed Lam pki n’ s m ot i on and bi f ur cat ed the tr i al
. T he ch an ce ll o r he ld a h ea ri n g o n the issu e o f l iabili ty in N o v em b er 2 0 0 9
. T h e m ain issu e b efo re the cha ncery courtw as w hetherL ampki n br eac hed hi s f i duci ary duty t o L i m es t one by
us urpi ng a c orpor at e oppor tuni ty w hen he s t art ed D el t a St one. I n de t erm i ning w het her L ampki n br eac hed hi s fi duci ary duty t o L i m es t one, the cha ncel l orcons i der ed the f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) w hetherthe bus i nes s oppor tuni ty w as “r eas onabl y r el at ed t o the exi s t i ng orpr os pect i ve bus i nes s act i vi t i es of

the corpor at i on”; and ( 2) w hetherthe corpor at i on had the f i nanci al abi l i ty t o sei ze the opportuni ty. S e e A q u a -C u ltu re T e c h . L td . v. H

o lly , 677 So. 2d 171, 183 ( M i s s . 1996) ( M i s s i s s i ppi court s appl y a tw o- partt es tt o det erm i ne w hethera par t y has
e sta b lish e d a p rim a fa c ie c a se o f c o n flict o f in ter e st a risin g fro m a b u sin e ss o p p o rtu n ity in q u esti o n b eing a c o rpo rate o p p o rtu n ity ). ¶12. I n hi s or der , the cha ncel l ornot ed Lam pki n’ s conce s s i on tha tthe bu s i ne s s ve ntur es and act i vi t i es of D el t a S t one and Li m es t one w er e the s ame. T he cha ncel l orf ur thernot ed that D el t a St one oper at ed on the s ame pr operty as L i m est on e, us ed the s ame f aci l i t i es and equi pm entas Li m es t one, and s ol d r ock t o the s ame cus t om er s as L i m es t one. I n det erm i ni ng
w hetherL i m es t one had the f i nanci al abi l i ty t o s ei ze the corpor at e oppor tuni ty, the cha ncel l or

### 7

not ed that“[ t ] her e i s no di s put e amongstthe part i es thatt he bank w oul d notr enew the l i ne of cr edi tw i thoutthe per s onal guar ant ees of both the E s t at e and Lam pki n. ” The chanc el l or cont i nued: Fr om a r evi ew of

the document ary ev i dence , and f r om l i s t eni ng t o the t es t i m ony of

the part i es and thei r expe rt s, the [ c] our ti s notconvi nced that L i m es t one coul d f

unct i on w i thoutthe nee d f orthe l i ne of

cr edi t . H ow ever , the [ c] our ti s al s o notconvi nced thatthe Est at e w as gi ven ampl e i nf orm at i on or tim e to d e c id e w h e th e r [it] w a n ted to re n e w th e lin e o f c re d it. ¶13. I n re achi ng a det erm i nat i on as t o L ampki n’ s l i abi l i ty, t he chanc el l orco nsi der ed the event s thatoccurr ed betw een Sm i th’ s death i n A ugus t2006 and the D ece m ber2006 deadl i ne f orr enew i ng the l i ne of

c r edi t . W i thi n hi s di s cus s i on of thes e event s , the cha ncel l orpr ovi ded
a s um m ary of

the corr es pondence excha nged by the part i es . A f t err evi ew i ng the evi dence , th e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t L a m p k in faile d to tim e ly p ro v id e fin a n c ial in fo rm a tio n to th e E sta te and t o gi ve the Est at e ampl e t i m e t o r evi ew L i m es t one’ s corpor at e r ecor ds
. A s not ed i n the chancel l or’ s or der , the Est at e r eques t ed thi s i nf or m at i on t o deci de w hethert o pr ovi de a g u a ra n tee fo r L im e sto n e ’s lin e o f c re d it, a n d w ith o u t th e re q u e ste d in fo rm a tio n , the E sta te
w as unabl e t o m ake a n i nf or m ed dec i s i on pr i ort o the l i ne of cr edi t ’ s expi r at i on. ¶14. T he chanc el l or s t at ed t hat, i f t he l i ne of cr edi t w as cruci al t o oper at i ng L i m es t one, th e n L a m p k in , w h o w a s a w a re o f th e u p c o m in g d e a d lin e , p o ss e ss e d a fid u c iar y d u ty to L i m est on e to coope r at e w i th the Est at e t o m eetthe dea dl i ne. T he cha ncel l orf ound that L a m p k in’s fai lure to t im ely p rov ide the ne ce ssary fi n an cial info rm ati o n t o th e E sta te pr event ed hi m f

r om pr evai l i ng i n hi s a r gum entthatthe E s t at e’ s f ai l ur e t o r enew the l i ne of
cre d itrel ieve d him of an y furth er fi d u ciary du ty t o L im esto n e. A cc o rdin g t o the c h an ce ll o r,

### 8

“[ t ] he E s t at e s houl d ha ve been pr ovi ded m or e t i m e t o make the det erm i nat i on [ of w het her t o guar ant ee the l i ne of

cr edi t ] , even i f

thatm eantal l ow i ng the l i ne t o m atur e and l ett i ng the lin e s it f o r a fe w m o re w e e k s o r m o n th s w h ile L im e s to n e ’s d o c u m e n ts w e re in s p e c te d .” ¶15. A l though Li m es t one’ s ba l ance s heets show ed the corporat i on t o b e sol vent , the
c h a n c e llo r n o ted th a t th e c o rp o ra tio n a p p a re n tly lac k e d “ a su b sta n tial a m o u n t o f e q u ity w ith
w hi ch t o cont i nue on w i th the bus i nes s . ” The chanc el l orf ound thatthe l i ne of

cr edi thad been Li m es t one’ s pr i m ary s our ce of f unds w i th w hi ch t o pur chas e i nvent ory f orthe pas tt en y e a rs. H e the refo re a g ree d w ith L am p k in tha t, w ith o u t th e g u ara n teed li n e o f cred it, L i m es t one coul d notcont i nue t o oper at e. T he cha ncel l orf ound thatL ampki n w as an of f i cer and di r e c t oro f

Li mes t on e a nd thu s o w e d a f i du c i a ry du ty t o the c orpo r a t i on . By f or m i ng D el t a St one, L ampki n bre ache d hi s f i duci ary duty t o L i m es t one. I n addi t i on, the cha ncel l or f ound thatL ampki n’ s f ai l ur e t o t i m el y provi de the Est at e w i th the r eques t ed f i nanci al i n f o r ma t i o n h i n d e r e d L i me s t o n e ’ s f i n a n c i a l a b i l i ty t o c o n t i n u e i t s b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n s . As
a re su lt , the c h an ce ll o r gra n ted th e E x ec u tors’ m o ti o n to d ism iss an d d en ied L am p k in’s
re q u e s t f o r d e c la ra to ry re lie f. ¶1 6
. F o llo w in g th e c h an ce ll o r’s ruli n g th at L am p k in b re a c h e d h is fid u c iar y d u ty to L i m es t one by s t art i ng D el t a St one a ndus urpi ng a c orpo r a t e op po rtuni ty, the part i es pr es ent ed evi dence as t o t he dam age thatre s ul t ed f r om L ampki n’ s br eac h of duty. B oth part i es hi r ed an expe r tt o t es t i f

y as t o the val uat i on of

Li m es t one. L ampki n hi r ed B r entSaunde r s , and the E x e c u tors h ir ed Jam es K o erb er. T h e c h an ce ll o r ac ce p ted b o th ex p erts as c erti fi ed p u b lic
acc ount ant s and expe r t s i n the f i el d of bus i nes s val uat i on.

### 9

¶17. A f

t erconsi der i ng bot h exper t s ’ t es t i m ony, as w el l as the t es t i m ony provi ded by L ane a nd La mpki n, the c ha nc e l l ore nt e r e d hi s f i nd i ng s o f

f a c t . The c ha nc e l l ors t a t ed t hatany damages ow ed by Lam pki n s houl d be pa i d t o Li m es t one r atherthan t o indi vi dual
s har ehol der s . A s partof hi s anal ys i s , the cha ncel l orconsi dered t he pr of i t s L ampki n m ade b e c a u s e o f

th e u s u rp a t i o n ; L i me s t o n e ’ s a s s e t s ; b o th Li me s t o n e ’ s a n d De l t a S t o n e ’ s i n c o me and pr of i t ; and the debt s a nd othere xpens es a s s oci at ed w i th the oper at i on of both L i m es t one and D el t a St one. T he exper t s ’ t es t i m ony var i ed gr eat l y as t o the pr operval uat i on f or L i m es t one, and the chanc el l orfound thatt he expe r t s w er e “j us ts pl i t t i ng hai r s ” and ge t t i ng “b o g g ed d o w n ” in a n arg u m en t ov er the p rop er term ino log y to d e sc rib e L im esto n e’s valuat i on . T he chan cel l or s t at ed, “W hetheryou cal l i tass etbased or net book value or l ost pr of i t s , thi s [ c] our ti s m er el y conce rned w i th how and w hen t o val ue thi s bus i nes s . ” ¶ 1 8
. W ith re g a rd to d a m a g e s, th e E x e c u to rs c laim e d th a t th e E sta te w a s e n tit led to o n e -h a lf of the l ease p aym ent s ow ed t o L i m es t one s i nce 2007. W hi l e the cha ncel l orf ound thatthe l eas e w as s t i l l i n ef

f ect , he al s o not ed Lam pki n’ s t es t i m ony thatno l eas e payment s had bee n
m ade i n f

i ve yea r s . I n addi t i on, the cha ncel l orf ound that , as t he on l y t w o s har ehol der s of L im e sto n e , L a m p k in a n d S m ith w e re e q u a lly re sp o n sib le f o r a n y lea se p a y m e n ts a n d e q u a lly
e n title d to o n e -h a lf

o f a n y le a s e p ro c e e d s . H e th e re fo re fo u n d th a t th e is s u e “ c re a te [d ] a
w as h. ” ¶19. T he cha ncel l ornextcons i der ed t es t i m ony b y K oerber, the Execut or s ’ expert , that 649, 203 t ons of

r ock pur chas ed by Lim est on e w as di vert ed fr om the co rporat i on ’s acc ount i ng sy ste m a n d re m a in e d u n re p o rte d . T h e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t L a m p k in a n d h is e x p e rt,

### 10

Saunder s , acc ount ed f

orthi s al l egedl y unr eport ed r ock i n thei rt es t i m ony. A s t o thi s i s s ue, th e c h a n c e llo r sta ted th e fo llo w in g : T he [ c] our tdoes notf

i nd m er i ti n the ar gum entof the Est at e and i t s expertas i trel at es t o “u nrep o rt ed rock
. ” T he b usi ness w as a cl osel y h el d b usi ness w h e re ro c k w a s d e liv e re d to d iffe re n t lo c a tio n s a n d w a s b ill e d o n o c c a sio n to L ampki n hi m s el f

. Saunder s and Lam pki n w er e abl e t o r eadi l y acc ountf orthe al l eged unr eport ed r ock. T her ef or e, the [ c] our tw i l l nott ake i nt o cons i der at i on a n y p u rp o rte d “ u n re p o rte d p ro d u c t.” T h e [c]o u rt d o e s n o t fin d th a t th is con st i tutes “l ostprofi t s” of the b usi nesses. ¶20. T he chancell or nex tlooked at t he act ual pr of i tof L i m es t one and D el t a St one as
r eport ed i n the compani es ’ f i nanci al r ecor ds
. H e f

ound the f

ol l ow i ng: T her e i s no quest i on, fr om t he t es t i m ony of the par t i es , of the i nabi l i ty of the part i es t o ge ta l ong, a nd ther ef or e, the E s t at e and L ampki n w oul d nothave co n ti n u ed to d o b u sine ss tog ethe r f o r a pro lon g ed pe ri o d of t im e [aft er S m ith ’s death]
. I f

the [ c] our tw er e t o carry i t s bus i nes s as s es s m entf orw ar d t o the yea r 2 0 1 2 , b a se d o n th e fin a n c ial re c o rd s o f b o th c o m p a n ie s, th e [c]o u rt w o u ld m e re ly b e p lac in g a n e t lo ss in th e h a n d s o f th e c o rp o ra tio n . A c o rp o ra tio n is re s p o n s ib le f

o rn o t o n ly th e p ro fi ts o f a b u s in e s s , b u t a ls o th e lia b iliti e s . . . . [ T ] her e i s no doubtf

r om t he f i nanci al re cor ds of the busi nes s t hatL i m es t one

. . . r el i ed hea vi l y on an oper at i ng l i ne of cr edi tand w as neveral l that pr of i t abl e. I ti s the opi ni on of the [ c] our tthatan aw ar d of da m ages af

t er2007 w ou l d be m or e equi t abl e w er e the [ c] our tt o l ook t o pas tper f or m ance of L i m est one . . . . T aki ng i nt o cons i der at i on the val ue of the bus i nes s as of D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , the [c]o u rt a g re e s w ith the fin d in g s m a d e b y S a u n d e rs in “Exhi bi tL ” t o hi s expertr eport . In thi s exhi bi t [ , ] Saunder s t akes the val ue of the y ear[ -] end net book values f or 200 6 an d 20 07 and back s ou tal l exp enses, a ll err o n e o u sly p lac e d p e rso n a l e x p e n s e s o f L a m p k in [,] a s w e ll as a c c o u n ts r ece i vabl e f

r om the partner s . A f

t erdeduct i ons , Saunder s added t he value of the corpor at i on’ s r emai ni ng as s et s . . . . H e arr i ved ata t ot al netbook val ue of $125, 546. 32. ¶21. I n det erm i ni ng L i m es t one’ s l os tprof i t s si nce J anuary 1, 2008, t he chanc el l orf ound

### The c hanc el lor ci te d to Love tt

v. E.L. Garne r I

nc. , 51 1 S o . 2 d1 34 6, 1 35 3 (M iss. 1 

### 1987), for his finding t

hat thi s m ethod is ac cepta

blein Mi ss is sippi cases involving bre ac h of co ntract. 11 “hi s t or i cal l os tnetprof i t s” t o be an appr opr i at e met hod f oras s es s i ng damages
. T he 1 chanc el l orbegan hi s a nal ys i s w i th K oerber ’ s aver age- net - i ncome f i gur e of $20, 914 f

orthe year s 2000 thr ough 2007. T he cha ncel l or t hen m ul t i pl i ed thi s amount by f i ve, w hi ch
acc ount ed f

oreac h yeari n the di s put ed per i od f r om 2008 thr ou gh 2 01 2. T hi s cal cul at i on am ou nted t o a tot al neti nco m e of $10 4, 57 0 for 200 8 thr ou gh 20 12
. A dd i ng the sum of these hi s t or i cal cos t s t o the netbook val ue of $125, 546. 32 pr ovi ded by Saunder s , the cha ncel l or concl uded thatthe t ot al damages ow ed t o L i m es t one amount ed t o $230, 116. 32. T he
c h a n c e llo r a lso o rd e re d th a t th e E sta te, a s o n e o f L im e sto n e ’s tw o sh a re h o ld e rs, w o u ld
r ece i ve $115, 058. 16, w hi ch amount ed t o hal f of the t ot al damages aw ar ded t o L i m es t one. ¶22. A f

t erdet erm i ni ng the damages ow ed t o L i m es t one, the cha ncel l orne xtc ons i der ed the E xecut or s ’ cl ai m f

ora t t orneys ’ f

ees and expe r t - w i tnes s f ees . A l though L ampki n us urped a
c o rp o ra te o p p o rtu n ity , the c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t th e p arties a n d th e ir a tto rn e y s h a d re p e a ted ly
corr es ponded i n the s ever al m onths af t erSm i th’ s death and pr i ort o the expi r at i on of the l i ne o f cred it
. T h ere fore , the c h an ce ll o r fou n d that the E stat e w as w ell aw are o f L im esto n e’s situ a tio n . T h e c h a n c e llo r a lso n o ted L a m p k in ’s b e lief th a t L im e sto n e c o u ld n o t co n tin u e to
o p era te w ith o u t th e li n e o f cred it , as w ell as L am p k in ’s efforts i n co m p let ing L im esto n e’s contr act s a nd keepi ng the pr of i t s f r om L i m es t one s epar at e f r om D el t a St one’ s pr of

i t s . B as ed on the evi dence pr es ent ed, the cha ncel l orf ound thatL ampki n’ s act i ons f ai l ed t o s how m al i ce

### 12

or gross neg l i gen ce or that he com m i t t ed fr aud
. T he chan cel l or t heref ore de nied the requ est fo r a tto rn e y s’ f

e e s. A g g rie v e d b y th e c h a n c e llo r’s ju d g m e n t, th e E x e c u to rs n o w a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶23. W hen s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence , a chanc el l or’ s fi ndi ngs of f act w i l l notbe di s turbed on appe al unl es s t he cha ncel l orabuse d hi s di s cr et i on, w as m ani f es t l y w r ong, w as c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s , o r a p p lie d a n e rr o n e o u s le g a l s ta n d a rd
. B iglane v. U nderthe Hi l lC or

p. , 9 4 9 S o . 2 d 9 , 1 3 -1 4 (¶ 1 7 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). A s the rev iew ing co u rt , w e e x am ine th e e n ti re
r ecor d and ac ceptas true al l “evi dence w hich s uppor t s orr eas onabl y t ends t o s uppor tthe f i n d i n g s o f

f a c tm a d e b e l o w, t o g e th e rw i th a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s w h i c h m a y b e d r a wn ther ef r om and w hi ch f

avorthe l ow ercourt ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f act . T hatther e may be other evi dence t o the contr ary i s i rr el evant . ” P arI ndus
. I nc. v. Targe tC ontai nerC o. , 708 So. 2d 44, 47 ( ¶4) ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. A s t o ques t i ons of la w , h o w e v e r, w e a p p ly a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . I d. at (¶5 ). DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he chancel l or er red by adm i t t i ng and rel yi ng on testim o n y fro m L a m p k in’s e x p er t. ¶2 4. T he Exe c ut or s c on t e nd tha tthe chanc el l orer r ed by r el yi ng on t es t i m ony f r om L ampki n’ s expert , Saunder s . I n addr es s i ng thi s as s i gnm entof err or , w e r ecogni ze that“the admi s s i on of

expertt est i m on y i s w i thi n the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge. ” Miss. T ransp. C om m ’n v. McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 4 (¶ 4 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ati o n o m itted).

### 13

“Ther ef or e, the dec i s i on of

a tr i al j udge w i l l s t and unl es s w e conc l ude thatthe di s cr et i on w as arbi tr ary and cl ear l y err oneous , amount i ng t o an abu s e of di s cr et i on. ” I

d. ( ci t at i on and q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). In su p p o rto f th eir argu m en t, the E x ec u tors asse rtthat S au n d ers’s t es t i m ony w as unr el i abl e bec aus e hi s damage cal cul at i on w as ba s e d o n u nr e l i abl e ac count i ng
m e th o d s a n d h e p o ss e ss e d a c o n flict o f in ter e st. ¶2 5. T he Execut or s f i r s tc on t e nd tha tSa un de r s e rr on e ou s l y us ed a bus i nes s - val uat i on a n a ly sis to c a lcu late d a m a g e s o w e d to L im e sto n e w h e n h e sh o u ld h a v e u se d a lo st-p ro fits
ana l ys i s . The Exe c ut or s f urthe r“ c on t e nd tha tthe i na pp r op r i a t e a na l ys i s u t i l i z e d by [ Saunder s ] s houl d, at t he ver y l eas t , nece s s i t at e def er ence t o the damages det erm i ned by [th e ir] e x p e rt[, K o e rb e r,] a n d , at m o st, re n d e r th e tes tim o n y o f [S a u n d e rs ] u n re liab le
acc or di ng t o R ul e 702 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence. ” The E xecut or s al s o ar gue,
w ith o u t p ro v id in g a n y su p p o rtin g c a se law , tha t S a u n d e rs’ s te stim o n y w a s u n re liab le d u e to
a co n fl icto f i n terest th at co m p rom ised h is objecti v ity . A s reflected in the rec o rd, S au n d ers’s f i r m per f or m ed t ax w ork f

orL ampki n per s onal l y and f orL ampki n’ s bus i nes s es , i ncl udi ng L i m es t one and D el t a St one. ¶26. “C onf

l i ct i ng ex perttes t i m ony— of t en ca l l ed a ‘ batt l e of

the expe r t s ’

— r equi r es the fa c t-fin d e r to a ss ig n c re d ib ili ty . T h e trial ju d g e , as th e fa c t- fi n d e r in th is c a se , w a s fr e e to
a c c e p t o r r e

je c t a n y o f t h e e x p e rt o p in io n s .” Es tat e of Syke s ex r el
. C ampb el lv. C alhoun Health S ervs. , 6 6 S o . 3 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 5 (¶ 2 7 ) (M iss . 2 0 1 1 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). O u r la w c lea rly p ro v id e s th a t ex p e rt t e stim o n y sh o u ld o n ly b e ad m itt e d if it m e e ts th e re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 7 0 2
. B ai l ey Lum ber& Suppl y C o. v. R obi ns on , 9 8 S o . 3 d 9 8 6 , 9 9 1 (¶ 1 3 ) ( M is s . 2 0 1 2 ).

### 14

¶27
. R ule 702 p rovi des: I f s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , or other s peci al i zed know l edge w i l l as s i s tthe tr i erof factt o u nd ers t and the ev i den ce or to d eter m i ne a facti n is sue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as an expertby know l edge, ski l l , exper i ence , tr ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m ay t es t i f

y ther et o i n the f

or m of a n opi ni on orotherw i s e, i f ( 1) the t es t i m ony i s bas ed upon s uf

f i ci entf act s ordat a, ( 2) the t es t i m ony i s t he produc tof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods , and ( 3) t he w i tnes s has appl i ed the pr i nci pl es and met hods r el i abl y t o the f act s of the ca s e. ¶28. T hus , pur s uantt o R ul e 702, expertt es t i m ony m us ts at i s f y a tw o- pr onged i nqui ry: ( 1) “the w i tnes s m us tbe qual i f i ed by vi r tue of

hi s . . . know l edge, s ki l l , ex peri ence[, ] or edu cat i on ”; and (2) “t he w i tness’ s sc i ent i f i c, t echni cal [ , ] orothers peci al i zed know l edge m ust
as s i s tt he t r i erof f

acti n under s t andi ng ordeci di ng a f acti n i s s ue. ” McL em ore , 863 So. 2d at35 ( ¶7) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. “I n otherw or ds , the expertw i tnes s mustbe qual i f i ed to r e n d e r th e o p in io n , a n d th e te s tim o n y m u s t b e re le v a n t a n d re lia b le .” B ai l ey Lum ber , 98 S o . 3 d a t 9 9 2 (¶ 1 3 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). ¶ 2 9
. S a u n d e r s t e s t i f

i e d th a th e o b t a i n e d h i s c e rt i f i e d
- p u b l i c - a c c o u n t a n tl i c e n s e i n 1 9 7 7 . He f ur thert es t i f

i ed thathe bega n hi s ow n acc ount i ng fi rm in 19 81 and thathi s pr act i ce ha d i ncluded per f

or m i ng bus i nes s val uat i ons s i nce the mi d- 1980s
. Saunder s al s o t es t i f i ed that he w as a mem berof s ever al pr of es s i onal as s oci at i ons and w as cert i f i ed i n f i nanci al f or ens i cs by the A m er i can I ns t i tut e of Cer t i f i ed Publ i c A ccount ant s . I n addi t i on, Saunder s s t at ed that he had pr evi ous l y t es t i f i ed and been ac cept ed as an expe rti n al l types of acc ount i ng- r el at ed
ar eas , i ncl udi ng bus i nes s val uat i ons , l os t - pr of i t s c a l c ul a t i ons , corpor at e ac count i ng pr act i ces a n d p ro c e d u re s , a n d d a m a g e s tu d ie s . ¶30. D uri ng bo t h Saunder s ’ s voi r di r e and cr os s - exami nat i on, the E xecut or s ques t i oned

### 15

h im ab o u t his objecti v ity an d h is f irm ’s w o rk o n b eh alf of L am p k in an d L am p k in’s b u sin e ss e s. T h e E x e c u to rs s p e c ifica lly a sk e d S a u n d e rs d u rin g v o ir d ire w h e th e r h e c o u ld have Lampk i n a s a c l i e nta nd s t i l l r e t a i n hi s i nd e pe nd e nc e a s a n e xp e r twi tne s s i n t he pr ocee di ng. I n r es pons e, Saunder s s t at ed: T her e’ s the s t andar d .
. . w hi ch f or ens i c acc ount ant s f

al l underw hi ch i s i n the cons ul t i ng pr act i ce. A nd a s a ge ner al rul e, i ndepende nce i s nota r equi r ement t o pr act i ce i n thata r ea. A nd s peci f i cal l y[ , ] I can do t ax w or k and ac count i ng w o rk fo r a c li en t and sti ll b e ind ep en d en t un d er th o se ru les as a n ex p ert w i tness. W hen as ked dur i ng voi rdi r e w hetherhe w orr i ed t hat , i f he t es t i f i ed adver s el y t o L ampki n, h e m ig h t lo s e L a m p k in ’s b u s in e s s , S a u n d e rs re p lie d , “ A b s o lu te ly n o t.” ¶3 1
. A s the rec o rd reflects, L am p k in laid a fou n d ati o n a n d p rese n ted S au n d ers a s an ex p ert
w i tnes s i n busi nes s val uat i on, and t he E xecut or s then had a n oppor tuni ty t o conductvoi rdi r e. A s the f act - f i nderi n the cour tb el ow , the chanc el l orw as i n the bes tpos i t i on t o as s i gn c re d ib ility to th e c o n fl ic tin g e x p e rt te s tim o n y p re s e n te d d u ri n g th e “ b a tt le o f t h e e x p e rt s ,”
a n d h e w a s fr e e to a c c e p t o r r e je c t a n y o f t h e e x p e rt o p in io n s . S e e C a m p b e ll , 66 So. 3d at 1 3 5 (¶2 7 ). B ase d o n the rec o rd b efo re h im , the c h an ce ll o r ac ce p ted S au n d ers a s an ex p ert i n the f i el d o f busi ness va l uat i on and al l ow ed hi m t o t es t i f y. T he cha ncel l orcl ear l y f ound thatSaunder s w as qual i f i ed t o r enderan expe r topi ni on and thathi s t es t i m ony w as r el evant and r el i abl e. See Bai l ey Lum ber , 98 So. 3d at992 (¶13 ). A ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d and appl i cabl e ca s el aw , w e f i nd no a bus e of

di s cr et i on by the chanc el l or ’ s de ci s i on t o admi tand
re ly o n S a u n d e rs’ s e x p e rt tes tim o n y . T h is iss u e th e re fo re lac k s m e rit. I I . W het her t he chancel l or properl y ass es s ed the am ount of dam ages

### 16 due t o t he c or por at i on. ¶3 2
. T h ro u g h o u t th e ir b rie f, the E x ec u tors arg u e tha t th e c h an ce ll o r fail ed to p ro p e rly
asses s the d am ages ow ed to not only L i m est on e bu tal so the E st at e. T he E xecu t ors s eek lost p r o f i t s i n s t e a d o f

l o s ti n c o me a s d a ma g e s . I n r e v i e wi n g th i s a s s i g n me n to f e rr o r , we acknow l edge the f

ol l ow i ng: T h e a s s e s s me n to f

d a ma g e s i s a f

i n d i n g o f f a c t , a n d th e a p p e l l a t e c o u r tr e v i e ws an aw ar d of

damages underthe cl ear l y err oneous s t andard. T hi s C our thas s t at ed thatda m age aw ar ds a r e onl y ove r turned w hen the tr i al j udge has abus ed hi s di s cr et i on ori n except i onal cas es w her e suc h aw ar ds ar e so gr os s as t o be co n tr ary to ri g h t reaso n . T h e ap p ell ate co u rtm u st rev iew the d am ag es a w ard by l ooki ng t o the f

act s of eac h cas e. G r eat erC ant on For d Mer cur y I nc. v. Lane , 997 So. 2d 198, 206 ( ¶30) ( M i s s . 2008) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. I n s uppor tof thei rar gum entthatt he cha ncel l or aw arded L i m est on e i nad equ at e dam ages, the E xecu t ors rai se the fol l ow i ng sub-ar gu m ents : ( 1) the cha ncell orbas ed hi s cal cul at i on of damages on unr el i abl e ac count i ng m ethods ; ( 2) the chanc el l orf

ai l ed t o t ake i nt o a ccountthe unr eport ed r ock thatL ampki n al l egedl y di vert ed fr om L i m est on e; and (3) the ch ancell or fai l ed to aw ard dam ages w i th respectt o a v al i d leas e a g re e m e n t.
a. The C hanc e l l or ’ s A c c ount i ng M e t hods ¶33. I n r es pons e t o t he E xecut or s ’ cl ai m t hatt he cha ncel l orbas ed hi s damages as s es s m ent
on unr el i abl e ac count i ng m ethods , L ampki n as s ert s thatthe cha ncel l orr el i ed on port i ons of b o th e x p e rts’ c a lcu latio n s th a t fe ll w ith in a c c e p ted m e th o d o lo g ies to a rriv e a t a r e a so n a b le cal cul at i on bas ed on t he par t i es ’ evi dence
. L ampki n furtheras s ert s thatthe cha ncel l orw as

### 17

w ith in h is d isc re tio n to “ m a k e h is o w n ca lc u latio n u sin g an ap p ro v e d m e th o d o lo g y , in th is
c a s e [,] u s in g p a s t p ro fi ts to c a lc u la te lo s t p ro fi ts .” ¶34. I n cal cul at i ng the amountof damages ow ed t o L i m es t one, the chanc el l orci t ed 

### Lo vett
v. E.L. Garne r I

nc. , 511 So. 2d134 6, 13 53 (Miss. 198 7), for his fin din g th at “histo rical lost net prof it s”is an a cc ept abl e m ethod to us e in case s involving bre ac h of c ontrac t . W ith
re g a rd to lo s s o f f

u tu re p ro fi ts , L o v e tt

s t at es the f

ol l ow i ng: I n M i s s i s s i ppi , one may r ecove rf orl os s of f utur e pr of

i t s i n a br eac h of contr actact i on as l ong as s uch pr of i t s ar e pr oved w i th r eas onabl e ce r t ai nty, not bas ed on s pecul at i on orconj ectur e. I n cal cul at i ng l os s of f utur e pr of

i t s , s uch l oss i s that of

net profi t s as oppo sed t o gross profi t s. T o ascer t ai n n etprofi t s, a party m us tdeducts uch i t ems a s overhead, depr eci at i on, t axes and i nf l at i on. F u rth e r, fu tu re p ro fits sh o u ld a lw a y s b e d isc o u n ted a t an a p p ro p ria te r a te to arr i ve atpr es entval ue. A nd, f i nal l y, t he pl ai nt i f

f m us tm i t i gat e damages i f he i s abl e t o do s o. T h e re a re n o g u id e lin e s s e t in s to n e s p e c ify in g th e d e g re e o f c e rta in ty thatw e r equi r e of

part i es i n pr ovi ng l os s of f utur e pr of

i t s . I ndeed, the degr ee o f p ro o f re q u ire d u su a lly d e p e n d s o n th e p a rticu lar fa c ts o f th e c a s e . O ne gu idelin e fr equ en tl

y recog n i

zed by this Cou rt

is a pa rt y’s proo f of it s past profit s. I d. (em p h asis ad d ed an d interna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶35. T hus , as r ecogni zed by M i s s i s s i ppi cas el aw , “one w ay t o s how damages ( the l os s of f utur e pr of

i t s ) i s t o i ntr oduce e vi dence of pas tpr of i t s . ” Sanders v. D ant

z l er , 375 So. 2d 774, 777 ( M i s s . 1979)
. Thi s Courtha s f ur therc l ar i f

i ed, how ever , that“ [ i ] ti s l os tpr of i t s and not l os ti ncome w hi ch i s the pr operm eas ur e of damages , i
. e. , i ti s a netand nota gr os s f i gur e on
w hi ch damages s houl d be ca l cul at ed. ” Lynn v. Sot er r a I nc. , 8 02 S o. 2 d 16 2, 1 71 (¶33 ) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2001) ( ci t i ng C i t y of N ew A l bany v. B arkl ey , 5 1 0 S o . 2 d 8 0 5 , 8 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )).

### To ca lc ulatedam age s, thechance ll or us ed the ne t book va lueof $125, 546.32, plus 2 

### the lo st pro fits calculatedfor 2 00 8 throu gh20 12 , as follo ws: $125,546. 32 + $104,570. 00 $230,116. 32 18 ¶36. A s r ef

l ect ed by the r ecor d i n thi s c as e, the chanc el l orl ooked at Lim est on e’s past p erfo rm an ce for the y ea rs 2 0 0 0 th rou g h 2 0 0 7 to as sess d am ag es in the fo rm o f l o st f u ture pr of i t s f orthe year s 2008 thr ough 2012. I n det erm i ni ng l os tf utur e pr of

i t s , the cha ncel l or us ed the ave r age ne ti ncome pr ovi ded by K oerber , the E xecut or s ’ e xpert . For2000 thr ough 2007, K oerberdet erm i ned thatthe ave r age ne ti ncome, orpas tpr of i t s , f orL i m es t one amount ed t o $20, 914. M ul t i pl yi ng thi s amount by f i ve, t he num berof yea r s f or2008 thr ough 2012, the cha ncel l ordet erm i ned thatL i m es t one’ s l os s of f utur e pr of

i t s t ot a l e d $104, 570. T he chanc el l oral s o us ed the netbook val ue of $125, 546. 32 pr ovi ded by Saunder s ’ s t es t i m ony a n d a d d e d th is a m o u n t to th e c a lcu latio n o f L im e sto n e ’s lo st fu tu re p ro fits. A s a re su lt o f th is
m ethod, the cha ncel l ordet erm i ned thatL i m es t one s uf f er ed damages of

$230, 116. 32. 2 ¶37. B as ed on appl i cabl e cas el aw a nd the f act s of thi s cas e, w e f

i nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the met hods the cha ncel l orus ed t o as s es s L i m es t one’ s damages
. I n r evi ew i ng the part i cul arf

act s of thi s cas e, w e f

i nd thatthe r ecor d f

ai l s t o demonstr at e t hatthi s i s one of th o s e “ e x c e p tio n a l c a s e s w h e re [th e a w a rd w a s ] so g ro s s a s to b e c o n tr a ry to rig h t r e a s o n .” G reat er C an t on Ford Mercury , 997 So. 2d at206 (¶ 30)
. A ccor di ngl y, t hi s ar gum entl acks
m e rit. b. T he U nreport ed R ock

### 19

¶ 3 8
. T h e E x e c u to rs a lso c o n ten d th a t th e d a m a g e s c a lcu late d w ith re sp e c t to lo st p ro fits
ar e gr eat l y under s t at ed bec aus e the cha ncel l orf ai l ed t o t ake i nt o accountunr eport ed r ock that L a m p k in a lleg e d ly d iv e rte d fro m L im e sto n e . W ith o u t p ro v id in g a n y c a se law to su p p o rt th e ir
ar gum ent , the Execut or s cl ai m thatthe cha ncel l orabus ed hi s di s cr et i on by el i m i nat i ng the
un report ed rock fr om the calcul at i on of L i m est on e’s l ostprofi t s. ¶3 9. I n hi s fi ndi ngs of f a c t , the c ha nc e l l ordi s c us s e d the pa r t i e s ’ c on f l i c t i ng t es t i m ony regar ding t he all egati on s of un report ed rock. T he chan cel l or t hen d i sm i ssed the E xecu t ors’ al l egat i ons , st at i ng t hat“L ampki n and S aunder s bot h pr ovi ded t es t i m ony w hi ch ac count ed forthe w hereabo uts of the all eged un report ed rock
. ” A s our casel aw recogn i zes,

“ [ c ] on f l i c t i ng t e s t i mony i n the r e c or d i s t o be r e s ol ve d by the tr i e rof f act . ” Sco t tA ddis on C on str. Inc. v. L au derda l e C nty. Sch
. Sys. , 789 So. 2d 77 1, 7 73 ( ¶8) ( M i s s . 2001)
. T he
c h a n c e llo r, as th e fa c t-fin d e r in th e c o u rt b e lo w , p o ss e ss e d th e a u th o rity a n d d isc re tio n to
w e ig h th e c re d ib ility o f th e p a rt ie s ’ t e s tim o n y . U n iv. Me d . C tr. v . M

a rtin , 994 So. 2d 740, 7 4 6 -4 7 (¶ 2 5 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶ 4 0
. A s re fle c ted in h is ju d g m e n t, th e ch a n c e llo r c le a rl y re s o lv e d th is fa c tu a l d isp u te
re g a rd in g th e a lleg a tio n s o f u n re p o rte d ro c k in L a m p k in ’s f a v o r. A s p re v io u sly
a c k n o w led g e d , o n a p p e a l th is C o u rt e x a m in e s th e e n tire r e c o rd a n d a c c e p ts a s tru e a ll

“ e v i d e n c e wh i c h s u p p o r t s o rr e a s o n a b l y t e n d s t o s u p p o r tt h e f i n d i n g s o f

f a c tma d e b e l o w, t ogetherw i th al l r eas onabl e i nf er ence s w hi ch m ay be dr aw n ther ef r om a nd w hi ch f

avorthe l ow ercourt ’ s fi ndi ngs of f act . ” P arI

ndus
. I nc. , 708 So. 2d at47 ( ¶4) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. B as ed on the appl i cabl e s t andar d of r evi ew , w e f

i nd no abus e of

### 20

d isc re tio n in th e c h a n c e llo r’s re so lu tio n o f th is fa c tu a l d is p u te in L a m p k in ’s f a v o r. T h is
a rg u m e n t als o lac k s m e rit.

c. T h e L ea se-A g re em en t P a y m en ts ¶41. T he E xecut or s f

ur thera s s ertthat the chanc el l or f ai l ed t o a w ar d da m ages ba s ed on a
v a lid lea se a g re e m e n t. A c c o rd in g to th e E x e c u to rs’ a rg u m e n t, th e c h a n c e llo r e rro n e o u sly found that l ease m on i es w ere ow ed t o L i m est on e by L am pk i n an d S m i th, the shareho l ders. T hey i ns t ead c ont end the f ol l ow i ng: L i m es t one i s the l es s ee, ort enant ; ther ef or e, L i m es t one i s r es pons i bl e f or pay i ng m on i es t o L am pk i n an d .
. . S m i th u n d er the l ease. T hese l ease payment s ar e the obl i ga t i on of L i m est one, not[ the obl i gat i on of ] the i ndi vi dual shareholder s.

. . . . B y n ot f i ndi ng damages f

orthe [ E s t at e] due t o L ampki n’ s f ai l ur e t o pay the re n t o w e d fro m L im e sto n e to h im s e lf a n d S m ith , the [ch a n c e llo r] es se n tially pi er ced the corpor at e vei l
. O ddl y enough, the [ chanc el l or ] pi er ced the co rpo rate ve il t o th e d etri m en t o f th e n o n -bre ac h ing pa rty , w h ich is c o n tr ary t o th e a p p l i c a b l e c a s e l a w. T he Execut or s t her ef

or e ar gue t hatt he chanc el l ori gnor ed t he corpor at e f or m of Li m es t one, the en t i ty respon si ble f

or the leas e paym ents , and i nst ead pier ced t he corpo rat e vei l against th e n o n -b re a c h in g p a rt y w ith o u t a n y re a s o n . ¶4 2
. In re sp o n se, L am p k in fi rstasse rt s th a t th e c h a n c e llo r p ro p e rly d ec li n ed to aw ard damages f

orl eas e payment s thatthe Execut or s cl ai m L ampki n ow ed. I f thi s Courtdeci des t o cons i derthe cl ai m f

orl eas e payment s , how ever , L ampki n ar gues t hatt he Execut or s f ai l ed t o r ai s e the cl ai m i n thei rpl eadi ngs . A ccor di ng t o L ampki n’ s bri ef , the cl ai m w as notr ai s ed

### 21

u n ti l tri al i n Jul y 20 12
. T hu s, L am pk i n argues that any cl ai m as t o l ease paym ents be fore 2 0 0 9 is tim e -b a rr e d b y th e th re e -y e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . ¶43. L ampki n al s o as s ert s thatthe Est at e l os ta ny ow ner s hi p i nt er es ti n the pr operty l eas ed b y L i me s t o n e o n c e th e No v e mb e r2 0 1 1 j u d g me n twa s e n t e r e d t o p a r t i t i o n th e p r o p e r ty . He ther ef or e ar gues that , atm os t , onl y l eas e payment s al l egedl y ow ed f r om 2009 thr ough 2011
co u ld b e c o n side red
. O v era ll , ho w ev er, L am p k in ask s this C o u rtto affirm the c h an ce ll o r’s det erm i nat i on thatthe Est at e s uf f er ed no damages f

r om the f

ai l ure t o pay r entand thatthe f act s m ake thi s i s s ue “a w as h. ” ¶44
. A pp l ying t he ap propri at e st and ard of r eview t o the f act s of this case, w e fi nd no abu se o f d isc re tio n b y th e c h a n c e llo r’s d e c isio n to n o t in c lu d e a n y a lleg e d lea se p a y m e n ts in h is cal cul at i on of

the damages ow ed t o L i m es t one. W e ther ef or e f i nd thatthi s ar gum entl acks
m er i t . A s a r es ul t , w e f i nd n o m er i tt o the Execut or s ’ over al l ar gum entthatthe cha ncel l or f ai l ed t o pr oper l y as s es s damages ow ed t o L i m es t one and the Est at e. I I I . W het her t he chancel l or er red by ref usi ng t o aw ard at t orneys ’ f ees an d exp ert- w i tness f

ees. ¶45. I n thei r f

i nal as s i gnm ent of err or , the E xecut or s cont end that the chanc el l or err ed by denyi ng thei rr eques tf

oratt orneys ’ fee s and expe r t - w i tnes s f ees . T hi s C our tr evi ew s the g ra n t o r d e n ia l o f a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d e x p e rt -w itn e s s fe e s fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S e e Sm ith
v. D ors ey , 599 So. 2d 529, 550 ( M i s s . 1992) ( f i ndi ng no abus e of

di s cr et i on i n the
c h a n c e llo r’ s a w a rd o f e x p e rt ’s fe e a n d a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s ). ¶46
. R ule 54 (d) of the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of C i vil P rocedu re di scusses j ud gm ents and cost s.

### For e xam ple , s eeMis si ss ippiCode Annotated s ec ti on 95-5- 10(3 ) (Rev . 20 13), whi ch 3 

### provi des that “[ a] llrea sona blee xpert[ -] witnes s fe es and att orne y’s fe es sha llbe a ss es se d as court costs inthe d iscretionof th e court” in tresp ass-to-timb er cases. 22 T he comm entf

orR ul e 54 s t at es the f

ol l ow i ng: T h re e re late d c o n c e p ts s h o u ld b e d istin g u ish e d in c o n sid e rin g R u le 54( d) : T hes e ar e cos t s , fe es , and expens es . C os t s r ef er s t o thos e cha r ges that one party has i ncurr ed and i s perm i t t ed t o ha ve r ei m bur s ed by hi s opponentas partof the j udgm enti n the ac t i on . A l though cos t s has an eve ryday meani ng s ynonym ous w i th e xpens es , t axabl e cos t s underR ul e 54( d) i s m or e l i m i t ed and repr esent s tho se off

i ci al exp enses, such as co urtfees , that a courtw i l l asses s agai ns ta l i t i gant . C os t s al m ostalw ays amount t o l es s than a s ucce s s f ul lit ig a n t’s to tal e x p e n se s in c o n n e c tio n w ith a law su it an d th e ir re c o v e ry is n e a rl y a lw a y s a w a rd e d to th e s u c c e s s fu l p a rt y . . . . Fees ar e thos e amount s pai d t o the courtorone of i t s of f i cer s f or p a rticu lar c h a rg e s th a t g e n e ra lly a re d e lin e a ted b y sta tu te. M o st c o m m o n ly thes e i ncl ude s uch i t ems as f i l i ng f ees , cl erk’ s and s her i f

f’ s char ges , and w i tnes s es ’ f

ees . I n m os ti ns t ance s an aw ard of cos t s w i l l i ncl ude re im b u rse m e n t fo r th e fe e s p a id b y th e p a rty in w h o se fa v o r th e c o st a w a rd is m ade. E x p e n se s in c lu d e a ll th e e x p e n d itu re s a c tu a lly m a d e b y a lit ig a n t in connec t i on w i th the ac t i on. Bot h f ees a nd c os t s a r e expens es butby no means co ns t i tut e a l l of

the m. A bs e nta s pe c i a l s t a tut e orrul e , ora n e xc e pt i on al exer ci s e of

j udi ci al di s cr et i on, s uch i t ems as at t orney’ s f ees , tr avel ex p en d itu res, an d inv esti g atory ex p en ses w il l n o t qu ali fy e ith er a s statutory fees or r ei m bu rs able cost s. T hese ex pen ses m ustbe b orne by the li t i gan t s. ¶47. “A s a gener al rul e, f ees f or expert w i tnes s es , beyond the or di nary f ees author i zed f

or
w i tnes s es , ar e nott axabl e as cos t s unl es s ther e i s a s t atut e s peci f i cal l y al l ow i ng s uch an expens e. ” H

ub ba rd v. D el ta San i tati on of Miss. , 64 S o. 3d 547, 564 ( ¶70) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) ( ci t at i on a nd i nt ernal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed)
. W hi l e cert ai n M i s s i s s i pp i st atut es 3 pr ovi de f ore xpert - w i tnes s f

ees t o be t axed a s cos t s i n part i cul arcas es , w e ca n f i nd no s uch

### 23

s t atut e thatappl i es t o the pr es entcas e. ¶4 8. A s t o t he i s s ue of an a w a r d of

a t t orne ys ’ f

e e s , M i s s i s s i pp i c a s e l aw pr ovi des t he f ol l ow i ng: [ T ] hi s C our thas anal ogi zed a n al l ow ance of att orneys ’ f

ees to the gr antof pu nit i ve d am ages. A bsent s t atutory au tho ri ty o r cont ractual pr o v i si on s, att o rne y s’ fees c an n o t be a w ard e d u n less p u n it ive d am ag es a re a lso p rop er. W i thi n thes e gui del i nes , the al l ow ance a nd the amount of a f ee i s a m at t er comm i t t ed t o the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge. Sm ith , 5 9 9 S o . 2 d at 55 0 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶ 4 9
. T h e su p re m e c o u rt h a s p re v io u sly h e ld : [ P] uni t i ve damages ar e r ecove r abl e i n br eac h[
- ] of[
- ] contr actc as es w her e the br eac h r es ul t s f

r om an i nt ent i onal w r ong and w hen ther e has been a s how i ng of m al i ce orgr os s /r eckl es s di s r egar d f orthe r i ght s of

other s . Puni t i ve damages ar e onl y a ppr opr i at e i n the m os te gr egi ous c as es s o a s t o di s cour age si m i l ar conductand sho ul d onl y be aw ar ded i n cas es w her e the ac t i ons ar e extr eme. W ar r en v. D er i vaux , 9 9 6 S o . 2 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 8 (¶2 8 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶5 0
. B ase d o n the ev iden ce p rese n ted b y the p arti es, the ch an ce ll o r fou n d that L am p k in’s conductf

ai l ed t o show m al i ce, gr os s negl i gence , orthatL ampki n comm i t t ed f r aud. T he chanc el l orf

ur therf ound t hatL ampki n usurped a c orpor at e opportuni ty f r om L i m es t one but thatthe Est at e w as w el l aw ar e of L i m es t one’ s devel opi ng s i tuat i on. I n his or der , the chanc el l ornot ed Lam pki n’ s t es t i m ony thatLi m es t one coul d notc ont i nue oper at i ng w i thout th e lin e o f c re d it, as w e ll as L a m p k in ’s e ffo rts to c o m p lete L im e sto n e ’s c o n tra c ts a n d to
s epar at e D el t a St one’ s pr of i t s f r om L i m es t one’ s pr of

i t s . A s a r es ul tof

hi s f i ndi ngs , the chanc el l orconcl uded thatL ampki n’ s act i ons “coul d be s ai d t o be s om ew hatnegl i gent , but notgr os s l y negl i gent . T he [ c] our tdoes notbel i eve [ L ampki n’ s ] behavi orw as egr egi ous or

### 24

c o m m itte d w ith m a lic e , a n d th e E s ta te h a s n o t a lle g e d a n y fr a u d .” ¶51. A r evi ew of

the r ecor d s how s thatthe cha ncel l or ’ s fi ndi ngs of f actw er e s uppor t ed by
s ubs t ant i al evi dence
. T her ef or e, appl yi ng our appr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew and ac cept i ng as true al l “evi dence w hi ch s uppor t s orr eas onabl y t ends t o s uppor tthe f i ndi ngs of

f actm ade bel ow , t ogetherw i th a l l r eas onabl e i nf er ence s w hi ch may dr aw n ther ef r om and w hi ch f

avor the lo w er c o u rt ’s fi n d ing s o f fact[ , ] ” w e find n o ab u se o f discre ti o n b y the c h an ce ll o r’s
re f u s a l to a w a r d a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d e x p e rt -w itn e s s fe e s . P arI ndus
. I nc. , 708 So. 2d at47 (¶ 4 ) (c itatio n a n d in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r la c k s m e rit. ¶ 5 2
. T H E J U D G M E N T O F T H E W A R R E N C O U N T Y C H A N C E R Y C O U R T IS AF F I RM ED . AL L CO S T S OF T HI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S E D T O T HE A P P E L L A N T S . LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG, P . J . , ROBE RT S AND M AXW EL L, J J . , CONCUR. GRI F F I S , P . J . , DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON, J OI NE D B Y B AR NE S , I S HE E A ND F AI R, J J . J AMES , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . GR I FF I S , P. J . , DI S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶ 5 3
. I r e s p e c tf

u lly d is s e n t. ¶ 5 4
. T h e c h a n c e llo r c a lle d th e ju d g m e n t a p p e a le d a “ J u d g m e n t o n V a lu a tio n o f B u s in e s s .” T he chanc el l orre cogni zed thatL ampki n and S m i th i ncorpor at ed Li m es t one Pr oduct s , I nc. T he cha ncel l orrul ed: T he l i abi l i ty por t i on of the ca s e w as hear d f

i r s tand t he C our tdet erm i ned L am pk i n br eac hed hi s f i duci ary duty t o the Sm i th es t at e by us urpi ng a corpor at e opp ortuni ty thr ough the s t art i ng of D el t a St one. I n addi t i on t o the bus i nes s i t s el f

, L i m es t one Pr oduct s , the part i es j oi nt l y ow ned cert ai n r eal pr operty on w hi ch the bus i nes s w as bei ng oper at ed. T he r eal p r operty has been pa r t i t i oned by thi s C our t . A l l thatr emai ns i s a n a s s es s m entof damages as a r es ul tof

the above r ef

er ence d us urpat i on.

### 25

T he cha ncel l orthen conc l uded, w i thoutci t at i on t o aut hor i ty, t hat“[ t ] he dam ages por t i on of th e tri a l t o o k p lac e o n the ab o v e re fe re n c e d d a y s. T h is p o rtio n o f th e trial c o n sis tedp rim a rily of estab l ishi nga va l ua t i on for Lim est on e P rodu ct s. ” ( E m phas i s added)
. T he cha ncel l orthen di s cus s ed the opi ni on s off ere d by the expe r tw i tnes s es . T he cha ncel l orthen s t at ed the “C our t ’ s Fi ndi ngs ”: A d ire c to r o r o ffic e r w h o is fo u n d to h a v e u su rp e d a c o rp o ra te o p p o rtu n ity “ may b e he l d a c c ou nt a bl e f ort he f rui t s of the w r on gd oi ng . ” 19 C. J . S. C or por at i ons § 513. A di r ect ororof

f i cerw ho us urps a corpor at e opportuni ty hol ds the us urped opportuni ty, and al l the pr of i t s and bene f

i t s r ece i ved th e re fro m , as c o n stru c tiv e tru ste e fo r th e c o rp o ra tio n , o r is lia b le i n d am ages m easured b y the profi t s w hich the co rporat i on l ost by notgett i ng the opportunity. Iti s i m m at er i al thatthe co rpo rati o n su ffered n o o u t- o f-po ck et l o ss or th at th e fidu ciary w as notunj us t l y enr i ched by the tr ans act i on. I d. T he C our ti n A q u a -C u ltu r e T e c h n o lo g ies , L td . v. H

o lly , 677 So. 2d 171, 183- 184 ( M i s s . 1996) , s t at ed s i m i l ar l y that"r ecove ry of pr of i t s m ay be a w a rd e d w h e re o n e w h o b re a c h e s a fid u c iar y o b lig a tio n m a k e s p ro fits in exce s s of the l os s c aus ed by the br eac h. " ( ci t i ng N or t e & C o. v. H

uf f i nes , 288 F . S u p p . 8 5 5 , 8 6 4 (S
. D . N . Y . 1 9 6 8 ). I n m aki ng a det erm i nat i on as t o the t i m e expi r at i on of any da m age a w ar d, the C o u rtturn s to the ca se o f Knox G las s B ot t l e C o. v. U nder w ood, 89 So. 2d 799, (M iss. 1 9 5 6 ), w h ere the C o u rtw as fa ce d w ith som ew h at si m il ar fac ts. In Knox G lass , R oy U nderw ood, the pr es i dentof a corpor at i on, di ed. A f t erhi s death, hi s br othert ook overas pr es i dentand the corpor at i on ent er ed i nto trucki ng lea se s fo r th e tra n sp o rta tio n o f p ro d u c ts. T h e lea se s w e re e n ter e d in to b etw ee n the c o rpo rati o n an d so m e o f th e U n d erw o o d fam il y , w h o w ere sharehol der s . as s oci at es , and f r i ends
. T hr ough the l eas es , thes e per s ons y ie ld e d la rg e p e rs o n a l p ro f it s . Kno x G lass , 89 So. 2d at803- 813. T he corporat i on sued argu i ng un j ustenri chm ent and v i olat i on of f i du ci ary duti es. T he C ou rtult i m at el y h el d thatthe d i rect ors and o ff i cers of K no x G l ass per s onal l y l eas ed trucks a nd r ece i ved s ubs t ant i al pr of i t s f r om the l eas es . Si nce the corpor at i on had the f unds t o pur chas e trucks , w hi ch w oul d ha ve bee n m uch

### 26

les s c o stly th a n th e lea sin g o f th e tru c k s, the d ire c to rs a n d o ffic e rs w e re liab le f orpr of i t s r eal i zed by the l eas es f ora r eas onabl e t i m e aft er t he death of the p re s id e n t. I

d. at818 ( E m phasi s added)
. T he C our thas ther eby s etf or th a s ubj ect i ve s t andar d w hen maki ng a det erm i nat i on of damages w her e a f i duci ary has br eac hed hi s orherduty t o a corpor at i on. W hat everdamages , i f

an y, d ue and ow i ng ar e t o be pai d t o . . . L i m es t one Pr oduct s , notthe i ndi vi dual s har ehol der s . In m aki ng a dam ages det erm i nat i on th e C o u rt m u st c o n sid e r w h a t, if an y , p ro fits w e re m a d e b y L a m p k in as a re su lt of the usurpat i on. T hi s as s es s m entorval uat i on r equi r es the C our tt o l ook at the as s et s of

L i m es t one Produ ct s, the i ncome orpr of i tof both L i m es t one P ro d u c ts a n d D e lta S to n e , an d th e d e b ts a n d o th e r e x p e n se s a ss o c iate d w ith the oper at i on of

both L i m es t one Pr oduct s and D el t a St one. ¶55. I i ncl ude thi s l engthy quot e of the cha ncel l or’ s opi ni on beca us e I bel i eve he has
a c c u ra tely sta ted th e law th a t is a p p lica b le h e re . H o w e v e r, sta rtin g in th e las t se n ten c e o f th is q u o te, the c h an ce ll o r ha s co m m itted e rror. ¶56. Fur ther , i n the nextpar agr aph, the cha ncel l orm akes err oneous s t at ement s of l aw . T he j ud gm ent s t at es: A l l o f th e d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g th e l i n e o f c r e d i ta n d L a m p k i n C o n s tru c t i o n 's paymentf

orpur chas e of

r ock r eal l y a r en' tof

a ny i m por t ance t o the C our ts i nce the l i ne of

cr edi tw as pai d of

f i n A pri l 2 00 7 and L ampki n C ons truct i on has pai d al l debt s ow i ng t o L i m es t one Pr oduct s . Thes e payment s w i l l be r ef l ect ed i n the f i nanci al r ecor ds of

the bus i nes s es . A l s o, the C our ti s of the opi ni on that the expe r t s ar e j us ts pl i t t i ng hai r s w i th gett i ng bogged dow n i n an ar gum ent ov er th e term i no l og y u sed t o d escr i be the valuat i on of L i m est on e P roducts
. W h e th e r y o u c a ll i t as se t b a se d o r n e t b o o k v a lu e o r lo st p ro fits, th e C o u rt is m e re ly c o n c e rn e d w ith h o w a n d w h e n to v a lu e th is b u sin e ss . B o th e x p e rts w e re a c c e p ted a s e x p e rts in th e fie ld o f b u sin e ss v a lu a tio n an d th e C o u rt w ill c o n sid e r th e rep o rts a n d tes tim o n y o f b o th K o e rb e r an d S a u n d e rs in m a k in g its f i ndi ng. ¶57 . T he ch ancell or has the d uty t o w ei gh the ev i den ce, asses s the credibi l i ty o f w i tnesses, and chos e w hatevi dence t o re l y upon. N ot abl y, t he chanc el l orst at es t hat“t he C our ti s of the

### 27

opi ni on thatthe expe r t s ar e j us ts pl i t t i ng hai r s w i th gett i ng bogged dow n i n an ar gum entover the t erm i nol ogy used t o desc r i be t he val uat i on of Li m es t one Produc t s . ” I di s agr ee a nd f i nd thi s t o be r ever s i bl e err or . T he expe r t s w er e not“j us ts pl i t t i ng hai r s ” or“gett i ng bogged d o w n ” ; r a th e r, th e y w e re te s tif y in g a b o u t d e ta ile d a n d im p o rt a n t a c c o u n tin g te rm in o lo g y . ¶ 5 8
. T h e c h a n c e llo r “d e ter m in e d L a m p k in b re a c h e d h is fid u c iar y d u ty to th e S m ith e sta te b y u su rp in g a c o rp o ra te o p p o rtu n ity th ro u g h th e sta rtin g o f D e lta S to n e .” A lo st-p ro fits anal ys i s s houl d be us ed t o c al cul at e damages ba s ed on a c l ai m of br eac h of

f i duci ary duty. G riffith v . G riffith , 9 9 7 S o . 2 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 3 (¶ 1 9 ) (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). L ik e w ise , a lo st-p ro fits
a n a ly sis sh o u ld b e u se d to c a lcu late d a m a g e s b a se d o n a c laim o f u su rp a tio n o f a c o rp o ra te
o p p o rt u n ity
. A q u a -C u ltu re T e c h n o lo g ies , L td . v. H

o lly , 6 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 7 1 , 1 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). ¶59. T her e i s si m pl y no l egal author i ty f orthe cha ncel l ort o cons i dera bus i nes s - val uat i on a n a ly s is fo r a c la im o f b re a c h o f f id u c ia ry d u ty o r u s u rp a tio n o f c o rp o ra te o p p o rt u n ity
. ¶60. Fur ther , i ti s i l l ogi cal t o i ncl ude a c al cul at i on of “netbook val ue” i n a ca l cul at i on f or d a m a g e s w h e n th e c o u rt fo u n d a b re a c h o f fid u c iar y d u ty o r a u su rp a tio n o f c o rp o ra te oppor tuni ty. U pon d i ssol ut i on, the s har ehol derof a corpor at i on i s ent i t l ed t o r ece i ve a di s tr i but i on of

the corpor at i on’ s as s et s thatr emai n. “N etb oo k val ue” i s s i m pl y an ac co u n ti n g term tha t i s n o t directly re lat ed to the ac tual v alue o f the c o rpo rati o n ’s a ssets. It
s houl d notbe cons i der ed as partof the ca l cul at i on of

damages f

ora recovery bas ed on the
c laim s o f b re a c h o f fid u c iar y d u ty o r a u su rp a tio n o f c o rp o ra te o p p o rtu n ity . T h e re is s im p ly
no cas e t o s uppor tthi s concl us i on. ¶6 1
. A lso, I d isag ree w ith the c h an ce ll o r’s disreg ard of th e u n rep o rt ed rock
. E ac h side ’s

### 28

e x p e rt w itn e ss a g re e d tha t t o n s o f ro c k w e re d iv e rte d b y L a m p k in fro m L im e sto n e P ro d u c ts to e ith e r D e lta S to n e o r L a m p k in C o n stru c tio n . S a u n d e rs te stifie d to th e fo llo w in g in h is di r ectt es t i m ony aboutK oerber ’ s t es t i m ony of “unr eport ed r ock”: W el l i n truth i f

unr epo r t ed means they w er en’ tr eport ed i n L i m es t one then yeah, that ’ s r i ght
. B utthey w er e r eport ed i n D el t a St one. 154, 000. H e moved th e to n s fr o m L im e sto n e to D e lta S to n e . A n d I’v e a lre a d y to ld y o u th a t h e d id th a t. T h e re ’s n o q u e stio n th a t h e d id th a t. T hus , Saunder s ’ s t es t i m ony s uppor t ed K oerber ’ s anal ys i s , w hen K oerbert es t i f i ed: L i m es t one Pr oduct s w as al s o damaged by M r . L ampki n pur chas i ng r ock del i ver ed t o t he Li m es t one Pr oduct s f aci l i ty and ci r cumvent i ng the ac count i ng s ys t em of Li m es t one Pr oduct s . Fr om 200 3 t hrough 2006, w hi l e Li m es t one Pr oduct s w as s t i l l oper at i ng, num er ous i nv oices fr om L uh r B rothers and T ow er R ock w er e notent er ed i nt o the Q ui ckbooks acc ount i ng sys t em of L i m es t one Pr oduct s , I nc. Li m es t one Pr oduct s e xper i ence d l os tpr of i t s due t o t he c i r c u mv e n t i o n o f

th e a c c o u n t i n g s y s t e m. I am of the opi ni on thatt he chanc el l orw as i n err ort o notcons i derthe unr eport ed r ock i n the cal culat i on of dam ages. ¶62. A ccor di ngl y, I w oul d r ever s e and r emand t hi s cas e t o the cha ncel l orf ora new tri al
o n d a m a g e s. A s p a rt o f th e re m a n d , I w o u ld a lso re m a n d th e c laim o f a tto rn e y ’s f e e s. I n o te thati n A qu a-C ulture , the M i s s i s s i pp i Su pr e me Cou r tu ph e l d a n a w a r d of a t t orne y’ s f

ees a g a in s t th e “ im p ro p e rl y -a c tin g s h a re h o ld e r.” C ovi ngt on v. C ovi ngton , 780 So. 2d 665, 671 ( ¶14) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001) ( ci t i ng A qu a-C ulture , 6 7 7 S o . 2 d at 18 4 ). BA RNE S , I S HEE AND F AI R, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.