Opinion ID: 1727275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the City unlawfully interfered with the business and contracts of HCA by causing a detrimental financial impact upon HCA due to the loss of revenues for opening graves.

Text: ¶ 14. HCA next argues that the City unlawfully interfered with its business and contract. HCA contends that the City's adoption of the order rescinding HCA's authority to open and close graves in the cemetery amounts to a tortious interference with contract rights. HCA claims that it will no longer be able to honor and fulfill its own contract obligations to individuals who procured perpetual care contracts for the care and maintenance of gravesites since it will no longer be receiving the income from the opening and closing of graves. ¶ 15. An action for tortious interference with contract ordinarily lies when a party maliciously interferes with a valid and enforceable contract, causing one party not to perform and resulting in injury to the other contracting party. Levens v. Campbell, 733 So.2d 753, 760 (Miss.1999). The four elements for this tort are: (1) that the acts were intentional and willful; (2) that they were calculated to cause damage to the plaintiffs in their lawful business; (3) that they were done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendant (which constitutes malice); and (4) that actual damage and loss resulted. Par Indus., Inc. v. Target Container Co., 708 So.2d 44, 48 (Miss.1998) (quoting Cenac v. Murry, 609 So.2d 1257, 1268-69 (Miss.1992)). Of course the plaintiff must also prove that an enforceable obligation existed between the plaintiff and another party. Merchants & Planters Bank v. Williamson, 691 So.2d 398, 407 (Miss.1997). In addition, the plaintiff must prove that the contract would have been performed but for the alleged interference. Par Indus., Inc., 708 So.2d at 48. ¶ 16. HCA contends that the City's October 1996 order rescinding HCA's authority to open and close graves in city-owned cemeteries amounts to a tortious interference with contract rights. HCA argues that it will no longer be able to honor its perpetual care contracts with individual cemetery plot owners. However, in HCA's bill of exceptions HCA offers no proof of any such contracts. We have stated, If the bill of exceptions is not complete and is fatally defective in that pertinent and important facts and documents are omitted therefrom, then the [circuit] court does not have a record upon which it can intelligently act. Stewart, 206 So.2d at 328. Further, this Court will not rely solely on assertions made in the briefs; it is the appellant's duty to establish any facts necessary to establish his claim of error. Goss v. State, 730 So.2d 568, 572 (Miss.1998). Therefore, HCA having provided no proof whatsoever of its perpetual care contracts with individual gravesite owners, we must conclude that no such contracts exist, thereby precluding a claim for tortious interference with contract rights. ¶ 17. Assuming arguendo, that HCA does have valid and enforceable contracts with individuals for the perpetual care and maintenance of gravesites, we apply the four elements of tortious interference with contract rights. First, the City's action in adopting the October 1996 order which rescinded the October 1987 order authorizing HCA to open and close graves must be said to be intentional and willful and calculated to cause damage. HCA fails to offer any proof that the City calculated to cause damages to HCA. HCA merely contends that the City knew that its actions would injure HCA. The City's mere knowledge of a detrimental effect on HCA does not constitute evidence that its actions were calculated to cause damage. Further, the City's actions were not done with an unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss without right or justifiable cause. When the City rescinded the October 1987 order it was exercising its statutory authority to make such orders ... as may be deemed conducive to the best interest of the municipality. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-17-1 (Supp.1999). Finally, HCA offers no proof that any loss has occurred. HCA only hypothesizes that it will no longer be able to fulfill its contractual obligations to the individual gravesite owners because it will be forced out of business.