Opinion ID: 2537735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of Small's affidavit.

Text: ¶ 16. We note from the outset that the Sweets never filed a motion to strike Small's affidavit. This Court has stated that the failure to file a motion to strike constitutes a waiver to any objection to the affidavit. Bd. of Educ. of Calhoun County v. Warner, 853 So.2d 1159, 1163 (Miss.2003) (quoting Haygood v. First Nat'l Bank of New Albany, 517 So.2d 553, 556 (Miss.1987)); Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 365 (Miss.1983) ([w]here the party against whom a motion for summary judgment is made wishes to attack one or more of the affidavits upon which the motion is based, he must file in the trial court a motion to strike the affidavit.). In the absence of gross miscarriage of justice, this Court may consider a defective affidavit. Warner, 853 So.2d at 1163 (quoting Haygood, 517 So.2d at 556). ¶ 17. Although the Sweets have waived any objections to Small's affidavit, the affidavit is TCI's only evidentiary support for summary judgment. Therefore, we must determine whether Small's affidavit enabled TCI to meet its burden of production and persuasion that no disputed factual issue exists. Frank v. Dore, 635 So.2d 1369, 1373 (Miss.1994) (citing Fruchter v. Lynch Oil Co., 522 So.2d 195, 198 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 18. The affidavit of TCI President Mark Small states, in pertinent part, as follows: ... Mark Small, who after being by me first duly sworn stated on oath that he has personal knowledge and is competent to testify as follows: 1. He is the President of TCI MS, Investment, Inc., the Buyer under the Sales Contract  Real Estate, which is attached as Exhibit A to the plaintiff's complaint. 2. He signs this affidavit for and on behalf of TCI MS, Inc., as its own act and deed after having first been authorized to do so by the corporation. 3. The plaintiffs did not provide a survey of the property that is the subject of the contract within 20 days after July 12, 2007, which was the date the due diligence clause in the contract ended. 4. Although TCI MS, Investment, Inc., attempted to obtain financing satisfactory to it from numerous financial institutions prior to the August 15, 2007, closing date in the contract, it was unable to do so. ¶ 19. This Court has expressed disdain for conclusory, self-serving affidavits used to support summary judgment. Dalton v. Cellular South, Inc., 20 So.3d 1227, 1234 (Miss.2009). Such affidavits, unsupported by material facts relevant to the issue at hand, are not a sufficient basis for granting summary judgment. Id. at 1233-34 (citing Burton v. Choctaw County, 730 So.2d 1, 9 (Miss.1997)); see also Hubbard v. Wansley, 954 So.2d 951, 965-66 (Miss.2007); Lovett v. Anderson, 573 So.2d 758, 760 (Miss.1990); Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 (5th Cir. 1996). ¶ 20. This Court recently reversed a lower court's grant of summary judgment where the decision was based on a conclusory, self-serving affidavit. Dalton, 20 So.3d at 1235. In Dalton, Cellular South, Inc., (CSI) terminated its agency agreement with Gregory Dalton. Id. at 1229. The agreement allowed CSI to do so if CSI determined that continuation of the relationship would be detrimental to the overall well being, reputation and goodwill... [of CSI]. Id. at 1229 n. 1. Dalton, however, refused to sign a full and final release. Id. at 1230. Consequently, CSI filed a declaratory-judgment action and then filed a motion for summary judgment. Id. In support of its motion, CSI attached an affidavit from its president, Hu Meena. Id. Meena stated that CSI's decision to terminate its agency relationship with independent agents was due to the administrative burdens associated with managing those agents. Id. at 1234. He acknowledged that Dalton's agency was successful in terms of sales, but Meena maintained that it would have been impractical to retain some agents while terminating others. Id. at 1235. This Court found Meena's affidavit to be conclusory, self-serving, and insufficient to support summary judgment. Id. The Court stated that Meena's affidavit lacked any foundational facts to show how, when, and why CSI had determined that continuation of the relationship was detrimental to CSI's well-being, reputation, and goodwill. Id. at 1234. The affidavit merely tracked the contractual language without providing any actual facts. Id. (citing Hubbard, 954 So.2d at 965). ¶ 21. We find Small's affidavit analogous to the affidavit in Dalton. Small's affidavit does not show when or how TCI attempted to obtain financing, or why TCI's available options were unsatisfactory. With a conclusory, self-serving affidavit as its only support for summary judgment, TCI failed to meet its burden its burden of production and persuasion. Accordingly, we find that the chancery court erred in granting summary judgment.