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 8 - CT - 0 1 5 2 1 - S CT COM M UNI T Y BAN

K O F MI

S S I S S I P P I AN D RA Y M O N McA L P IN a/k/ a R A Y M O N D McA L P

IN
v. DON NA S TUCKE Y ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 06/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. RO BE RT G. E VANS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COVI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : M ANDI E B. RO BI NS ON ALAN W
. P ERR Y J . CH AS E BR YAN CL AY W
. S L AY G. DA VI D G AR NER AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : DAVI D S HOE M AKE A. RE GNAL BL AC KL E DGE NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDGMENT O F T H E C O V IN G T O N C O U N T Y C IR C U IT CO UR T I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A F F I RMED - 12/ 09/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. Com m uni ty Bank f i l ed s ui tagai ns tD onna Stuckey, al l egi ng thats he had de f aul t ed on a l oan f

ora cat t l e oper at i on run by D onna and herhusband, M i ke. D onna al l eged thather
s i gnatur e w as f

or ged on thi s catt l e- bus i nes s l oan and on doc um ent s r el at ed t o s ever al ot her

### 2

catt l e- bus i nes s l oans as w el l
. A s a se par at e mat t er , D onna al l eged thatthe B ank had made
cert ai n m i s r epr es ent at i ons conce r ni ng an el even- acr e par cel f orw hi ch the Stuckeys had
exec ut ed a de ed of

trus t . W hen t he B ank soughtt o com pel arbi tr at i on, D onna al l eged that hers i gnatur es on the arbi tr at i on agr eement s a ccompanyi ng the ca t t l e- bus i nes s l oans and the el even- acr e deed of

t rus tw er e f

or ger i es . T he tr i al courtf ound no convi nci ng evi dence that D onna had s i gned any of the pert i nenta rbi tr at i on agr eement s ; ther ef or e, i tr ef us ed t o compel
arbi tr at i on. W e f

i nd thatt he tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs ar e notcl ear l y err oneous . Fur therm or e, beca us e of

the B ank’ s i m pr opr i ety, w e r ef us e even t o cons i derbi ndi ng D onna t o arbi tr at i on as a thi rd- party ben efi ci ary or based on the p ri ncipl e of equ i t able es t op pel. W e t hu s r everse th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d re in s ta te a n d a ff ir m th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. F ACT S & PROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. M i ke and D onna Stuckey ope r at e d a c a tt l e bu s i ne s s na med Stuc ke y Fa rms. A c cor di ng to D o n n a , M ik e b e frie n d e d R a y m o n d M c A lp in , a lo a n o ffic e r a t th e C o m m u n ity B a n k in R a le ig h , M is s is s ip p i, a n d m a d e M c A lp in a b u s in e s s p a rt n e r. ¶3
. W h ile M c A lp in m a d e n u m e ro u s lo a n s to th e S tu ck ey s du ri n g th e tim e o f h is partner s hi p, thi s di s pu t e co ncerns onl y f ourl oans . T hr ee of

the l oans conce rned the Stuckeys ’ catt l e bus i nes s . T he f our th i nvol ved a de ed of trus ton an el even- acr e par cel
. T he S tu c k e y s e x e c u ted th e d e e d o f tru st in th e n a m e o f A p p le rid g e E sta tes , L L C , an d h o p e d to d e v e lo p th e p ro p e rty fo r re sid e n tial u se . A ll fo u r lo a n s in c lu d e d a n a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t. ¶4. I n J une 2006, C om m uni ty B ank f i l ed a r epl evi n s ui t t o obt ai n pos s es s i on of per s onal pr ope r ty o f

f e r e d b y the Stuc ke ys a s c ol l a t e r a l f ors e ve r a l of

the c a t t l e - bu s i ne s s l oa ns . The

### 3

B ank al l eged thatM i ke had de f aul t ed on s i x catt l e- busi ness l oans, and thatD onna had d e fa u lte d o n a J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , c a ttle -b u s in e s s lo a n , n u m b e re d 6 8 0 3 1 4 8
. ¶ 5 . M i k e a n d Do n n a e a c h f i l e d s e p a r a t e a n s we r s a n d c o u n t e r c l a i ms . I n h e r c o u n t e r c l a i m, D onna al l eged f

or gery, conver s i on, m i s r epr es ent at i on, bre ach of fi duci ary dut i es , br eac h of the dut y of good f

ai th and f ai rdeal i ng, br eac h of

w arr anty, i nt ent i onal ornegl i genti nf l i ct i on o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s , d a m a g e to c re d it r e p u ta tio n , a n d g ro s s n e g lig e n c e . ¶6
. D onna’ s count er cl ai m m ade t w o sepa r at e al l e ga t i on s . Fi r s t , s he c on t e nd e d tha t M cA l pi n and t he B ank had f or ged hersi gnatur e on t he June 2003 catt l e- bus i nes s l oan, and th a t h e r sig n a tu re h a d b e e n fo rg e d o n tw o o th e r c a ttl e -b u sin e ss lo a n s a s w e ll, o n e d a ted A p ril 2004 and anotherdat ed February 2003. Second, D onna as s ert ed thatM cA l pin had m ade
m isre p re se n tatio n s to in d u c e th e S tu c k e y s to e x e c u te th e A p p ler id g e E s tate s d e e d o f tru st. ¶7. T he B ank res po nd ed w i th a m oti on t o co m pel arbitrat i on . D on na o pp osed thi s m ot i on, i ns i s t i ng tha ts he h a d ne ve rs i gn e d a ny a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e ment . D on na mai nt a i ne d thats he
w e n t to th e B a n k o n ly o n c e , o n M a y 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 , to s ig n th e A p p ler id g e E sta tes d e e d o f tru st. She fr eel y admi t t ed s i gni ng the dee d of trus t , buts he ada m ant l y deni ed s i gni ng any
a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t a tta c h e d to th a t d e e d o f t ru s t. ¶8
. T he B a nk an d D on na ea c h ob t a i ne d a ha nd w r i t i ng ex pe rt . The i rex pe r t s ’ di ve r gent
o p in io n s a re d is c u s s e d la te r i n th e o p in io n . ¶9. T he t r i al cour torde r ed M i ke’ s cl ai m s t o arbi tr at i on, butre f us ed t o compel arbi tr at i on as t o D onna. T he tr i al c our tc oncl uded “[ t ] hatther e does note xi s tc onvi nci ng e vi dence t hat D onna . . . exec ut ed any of t he s ubj ectarbi tr at i on agr eement s . . . . ” I tf ur therf ound t hat

### 4

D o n n a h a d n o in ter e st i n th e S tu c k e y F a rm s c a ttl e o p e ra tio n , an d th e re fo re , sh e w a s n o t a th ir d -p a rt y b e n e fi c ia ry o f t h e c a ttle -b u s in e s s lo a n s . ¶10. T he C our tof

A ppeal s r ever s ed and r emanded the j udgm entof the tr i al court . I t f

ound that D o n n a w as b o u n d t o arbitr ati o n as a th ir d -pa rty be n eficiary; he n ce , itw as u n n ec essa ry to d eterm ine w h ethe r she ac tually ha d si g n ed an y of th e arb itrati o n ag ree m en ts. T h e C o u rt of A ppeal s f

ur therf ound thatD onna w as equi t abl y es t opped f r om as s ert i ng cl ai m s bas ed on the l oan document s w hi l e s i m ul t aneous l y cl ai m i ng thats he w as notbound by the arbi tr at i on p ro v is io n s in th o s e s a m e d o c u m e n ts . ¶11. D onna, a ggr i eved by the C our tof A ppeal s ’ de ci s i on, f

i l ed thi s pet i t i on forw ri t of
c e rt io ra ri , w h ic h w e g ra n te d
. DI S CU S S I ON ¶12. W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o c om pel arbi tr at i on de novo. U nited Cr edit Cor

p.
v. Hu bb ard , 9 0 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 6 , 1 7 7 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ). I . W he t he r Donn a s i g ne d a n a r bi t r a t i o n a g r e e m e nt a t t a c he d t o t he A p p l eri d ge E st ates deed of t ru st or the J u n e 20 03 catt l e-bu si n ess lo a n . ¶13. B y al l egi ng that s he never si gn ed any arbi t r at i on agr eement , D onna chal l enges t he exi s t ence of

a val i d agr eementt o arbi tr at e. T he tr i al courtm ade a f actual fi nd i ng “[ t ] hat ther e does notexi s tcon vinci ng evi dence thatD onna . . . exec ut ed any of the s ubj ect arb itrati o n ag ree m en ts . . . . ” W e m u st acc ep t a tri al c o u rt ’s fac tual fi n d ing s u n less they are “c learly err on eou s, ” i
. e. , ev iden ce ex ist s to su p p o rtthe find ing s, b u t aft er rev iew ing the e n ti re e v id e n c e , w e a re le ft w it h a “ d e f in it e a n d fi rm c o n v ic tio n th a t a m is ta k e h a s b e e n m a d e .”

### 5

U H S- Q uali car e, I

nc. v. G ul

f Coas t Cm t y. Hos p. , I nc. , 525 So. 2d 746, 753- 54 ( M i s s . 1987) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A . T h e A p p l eri d ge E st ates deed of t ru st ¶1 4. T hough some evi dence sugges t s t hatD onna si gned a ve r s i on of a n a rbi tr at i on agr eementf

orthe A ppl er i dge E s t at es de ed of trus t , w e ar e notf

i r m l y convi nced thatthe tr i al
c o u rt m a d e a m is ta k e in c o n c lu d in g th a t s h e h a d n o t s ig n e d a n y a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t. ¶1 5. A s i tturns o ut , the r e a r e tw o di f f e r e nta rbi tr a t i on agr eement s f ort he A ppl er i dge E s t at es deed of

trus t , both dat ed M ay 12, 2003. E ach a gr eementr ef er s t o the s ame l oan num ber , bear s the sa m e dat e, and obl i gat es the s ame am ountof m oney t o the borr ow er s . Y et th e r e a r e g l a r i n g d i f

f e r e n c e s b e twe e n th e two d o c u me n t s . T o a d d t o th e c o n f u s i o n , th e two e x p e rt s b a s e d th e iro p in io n s o n d if fe re n t v e rs io n s . ¶16. T he B ank’ s expert , G r antSperry, r ef er ence d an arbi tr at i on agr eement B at es - s t amped O R G
- 000098 and O R G
- 000099. T hi s par t i cul aragr eementw as si gned by M i ke, D onna, and M cA l pi n. The s i gnatur e l i ne l i s t s D onna as “V i ce Pr es i dent ” and “ M ember ” of A ppl er i dge E stat es, L L C
. T h e ti tl e “ V ice P reside n t, ” h o w ev er, is m an u all y cro ssed o u t w ith D o n n a’s i ni t i al s al ongs i de. Sperry concl uded t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of cert ai nty thatD onna had
s i gned thi s part i cul ardocument , r ef err ed t o her e as the “Sperry agr eement . ” ¶1 7 . In co n tr ast t o th e “S p erry ag ree m en t, ” the ag ree m en t to w h ich D o n n a’s e x p ert, R o b ert Fol ey, r ef

err ed i s B at es - s t amped O R G
- 0000101 and O R G
- 0000102. I tw as si gned by M i ke, D onna, and an i ndi vi dual appar ent l y named D enni s , w hos e l as tname i s undi s cerni bl e. O ne s i gnatur e l i ne mer el y l i s t s D onna’ s name , w hi l e the otherl i ne l i s t s heras “M ember ” of

### 6

A p p ler id g e E sta tes , L L C . F o ley fo u n d a “ stro n g p ro b a b ili ty ” th a t D o n n a h a d n o t sig n e d th is document , r ef

err ed t o her e as the “Fol ey agr eement . ” ¶1 8. Sper r y and Fol ey t hus r e nd e r e d op i ni on s b a s e d on tw o di f f e r e nt , M ay 12, 2003,
arbi tr at i on agr eement s . I ti s unc l earw hetherei therexpertexami ned the ver s i on r ef er ence d b y th e o th e r. ¶1 9. I n hersw or n af

f i da vi ta nd i n h e rde po s i t i on t e s t i mony, D on na de ni e d s i gni ng any
arbi tr at i on a gr eementon M ay 12, 2003. T he B ank conf r ont ed D onna i n he rdepos i t i on about the s tr i ki ng s i m i l ar i t i es betw een he ractual s i gnatur e and t he s i gnatur e on page O R G
- 000099 of the S perry ag reem ent. S he answ ered, “I did n ot si gn that
. If a han dw ri t i ng exp ertsays I di d, then I ’ m w r ong, butI di d nots i gn that
. . . . [ F] oral l I know , they tr ace d i t . ” ¶20. B eca us e of

the evi dent i ary m or as s of di f f er entver s i ons of

the s a me do c umen t t oge ther
w ith c o n flictin g e x p e rt a n d d e p o s itio n te stim o n y , w e c a n n o t sa y th a t th e trial c o u rt c lea rly
err ed i n f

i ndi ng no convi nci ng evi dence thatD onna had s i gned any a rbi tr at i on agr eement p e rt a in in g to th e A p p le ri d g e E s ta te s d e e d o f t ru s t. B. The Jun e 20 03 c at t l e - bus i ne s s l oa n ¶2 1
. A s w ith th e arb itrati o n ag ree m en ts for th e A p p leri d g e E stat es d ee d o f trust, it ap p ea rs once a gai n thatD onna’ s a nd the B ank’ s r es pect i ve expert s di d notr evi ew the s ame docum ent
a n d th a t th e y b a s e d th e iro p in io n s o n tw o d if fe re n t d o c u m e n ts . ¶22. D onna’ s expert , Fol ey, concl uded that the arbi tr at i on agr eement for t he June 2 003
ca tt l e-busi ness l oan , nu m bered 6 80 31 48 , w as fo rge d b y D o n n a’s h u sb an d , M ike. T h e B an k ’s expert , Sperr y, count er ed thatD onna h ad si gned an a rbi tr at i on agr eementdat ed J une 16, 2003. B utthe agr eementthatSperr y r ef er ence d pert ai ned t o a di f f er entl oan— l oan number

### 7

6803091. H e pr ovi ded no opi ni on as t o any arbi tr at i on agr eementass oci at ed w i th the J une 2003 catt l e- bus i nes s l oan, num ber ed 6803148, w hi ch i s t he l oan t hati s r el evantt o thi s cas e. ¶23. W e cannot s ay that the tr i al court cl ear l y err ed i n f i ndi ng that D onna di d nots i gn any
a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t f

o r t h e J u n e 2 0 0 3 c a ttle -b u s in e s s lo a n . II. W h eth er D o n n a sh o u ld b e b o u n d to a r b itr a tio n a s a th ird -p a rty b e n e fi c ia r y o r b a s e d o n th e p r in c ip le o f e q u it a b le e s to p p e l. ¶24. T hough t he B ank cont ends that D onna actual l y s i gned an arbi tr at i on agr eementf or the A pp l eri dg e E st at es deed of trustand forthe Ju ne 2 00 3 catt l e-busi ness l oan , i targues, al t ernat i vel y, thatD onna i s bound t o a rbi tr at i on a s a thi r d- party be nef i ci ary orbas ed on the p rin c ip le o f eq u it ab le estop p el. M o reo v er, th e B an k d o es n o t seem to ch all en g e D o n n a’s al l egat i ons thathersi gnatur e w as for ged t o t he arbi tr at i on agr eement s fort he A pr i l 2004 and February 2003 l oans . T he B ank i ns t ead mai nt ai ns thatD onna i s bound t o arbi tr at e any cl ai m s w i th re s pectt o thes e part i cul arl oans beca us e of herthi r d- party- benef

i ci ary s t atus or b a s e d o n th e p ri n c ip le o f e q u ita b le e s to p p e l. ¶25
. W e have recogn i zed that“a si gn at ory m ay en for ce an a rbi trat i on agreem ent agai nst
a non- s i gnat ory i f

the non- s i gnat ory i s a thi r d- party benefi ci ary . . . . ” Q ualcom m v. Am e r i c an W

ir e le s s G r oup , 980 So. 2d 261, 269 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Adam s v. G r e e npo int Cr e dit , LLC , 943 So. 2d 70 3, 7 08 (M i s s . 2006) )
. E qui t abl e es t oppel , on the otherhand, p re v e n ts a p a rt y fro m e m b ra c in g th e b e n e fits o f a c o n tra c t w h ile s im u ltan e o u sly try in g to
a v o id its b u rd e n s . See T erm ini x I nt ’l , I nc. v. R i ce , 904 So. 2d 1051, 1058 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng W

as hington Mut

. Fin. G r oup, L L C

v. B ailey , 3 6 4 F . 3 d 26 0 , 26 8 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 )).

### 8

W e el ectno tt o a dd r e s s ora pp l y e i the rthe ory i n thi s c a s e , ho w e ve r , be c a us e of t he im p ro p ri e ty in v o lv e d in th is c a s e . ¶ 2 6
. T h e B a n k ’s m o tio n to c o m p e l a rb itr a tio n is , in e s s e n c e , a re q u e s t f o r sp e c ific p e rf o rm a n c e . E
. g. , Cos t

Bros . , I nc. v. T r avel ers I ndem . Co. , 7 6 0 F . 2 d 5 8 , 5 9 n . 1 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 5 ). It is a fu n d a m e n tal p rin c ip le o f la w th a t h e w h o se e k s e q u itab le r e lief, su c h a s s p e c ific p e rf o rm a n c e , m u s t d o so w ith c le a n h a n d s . E
. g. , P ick e tt v. B o u tw e ll , 240 M i s s . 18, 22, 125 S o . 2 d 8 2 2 , 8 2 3 (M is s . 1 9 6 1 ). ¶27
. T he B ank ’s han ds are t ai nted here du e t o several app arent ly u n co n test ed forgeri es. D onna al l eges thaton s ever al occa s i ons , M i ke f or ged hers i gnatur e atthe behe s tof M cA l pi n,
a n e m p loy ee of th e B an k
. Itap p ea rs th at othe rs f o rge d D o n n a’s sign ature as w e ll. R egar dl es s of w ho t he f

or germ i ghthave been, w e w i l l notcompel arbi tr at i on bas ed on thi r dparty- benef

i ci ary s t atus orequi t abl e es t oppel w her e the movanthas encour aged orengage d in fo rg in g th e n o n m o v a n t’s s ig n a tu re . A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th a t D o n n a is n o t b o u n d to
a rb itrate h e r cla im s a s a third -p a rty b e n e fic iar y o r b a se d o n the p rin c ip le o f e q u itab le
e s to p p e l. CO NC L US I ON ¶28. W e f

i nd that the tr i al court di d not cl ear l y err i n f i ndi ng no convi nci ng evi dence t hat D onna had s i gned any of the s ubj ecta rbi tra t i on a gr eement s . A nd be caus e the B ank comes b e fo re u s w ith u n c lea n h a n d s, w e re fu se to c o n sid e r b in d in g h e r to a rb itratio n a s a th ird -p a rty ben efi ci ary orbas ed on the pr i nci pl e of equi t abl e es t oppel
. W e thus r ever s e the C our tof A p p e a ls a n d re in s ta te a n d a ff ir m th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s re fu s a l to c o m p e l a rb itr a tio n .

### 9

¶ 2 9
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF THE COURT OF AP P EA LS I S REVE RS ED . T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE CO VI NG TON C OU NTY CI RCU I T COURT I S RE I NS TATED A N D A F F I R M E D . CARL S ON AND GRAV ES , P . J J . , DI CK I NSON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS AND CH AN DL ER , J J . , CONCUR. RANDOL P H AND PI ER CE , J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .