Opinion ID: 1957579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Murphree v. W.W. Transportation (Murphree II)

Text: ¶ 11. On remand the trial court found no valid debt existed. Murphree again appealed and, in upholding the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals, stated: In his order following the remand hearing, the trial judge stated, The Court has paid close and particular attention to the witnesses. Has taken into account their respective interest in the outcome, and their relationship to the central parties in this matter and does hereby find that no credible, believable testimony or evidence was introduced to convince the Court that the alleged promissory notes were valid and binding loan transactions between Weatherford and Murphree, or between W.W. Transportation and Jason Murphree. The trial judge found Weatherford's testimony to be inconsistent and Overall's [1] to be unreliable. Although we may have reached a different conclusion, we cannot say that the trial judge's findings were clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence. Murphree v. W.W. Transp., 878 So.2d 241, 243 (Miss.Ct.App.2004). [2] ¶ 12. Thus, the Court of Appeals' decisions in Murphree I and Murphree II are of no help to the Simmonses. Murphree I is inapposite, and Murphree II simply recognized the appropriate deference due to a chancellor's decision. ¶ 13. This Court has never held that oral contracts are inferior to, or less enforceable than, written contracts. In fact, this Court has specifically held: As a general rule, Mississippi law does not require that contracts be made in writing. Put otherwise, oral contracts are ordinarily no less enforceable than others. See, e.g., Short v. Columbus Rubber and Gasket Co., 535 So.2d 61, 64 (Miss.1988); Eastline Corp. v. Marion Apartments, Ltd., 524 So.2d 582, 584 (Miss.1988); St. Louis Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Lewis, 230 So.2d 580, 582 (Miss.1970); Canal Insurance Co. v. Bush, 247 Miss. 87, 154 So.2d 111, 119 (1963). Putt v. City of Corinth, 579 So.2d 534, 538 (Miss.1991). ¶ 14. When a trial judge sits as the finder of fact, he or she has the sole authority to determine the credibility of witnesses. Yarbrough v. Camphor, 645 So.2d at 869 (citing Bryan v. Holzer, 589 So.2d 648 (Miss.1991); Bell v. Parker, 563 So.2d 594 (Miss.1990)). In this case, we find in the record substantial evidence which supports the chancellor's decision. ¶ 15. Just before Eddie and Christi wed, they considered buying a house which they asked Jaggers to inspect and give them his opinion. Jaggers inspected the house and found some problems prompting him to advise the couple not to go forward with the purchase. Later, Eddie and Christi approached Jaggers to discuss building a house. According to Jaggers, the Simmonses wanted to build the house, sell it for profit, and use the profit to purchase a condo in Florida. Jaggers testified that he orally agreed with Christi and Eddie to build a house for them at cost, provided that when the house was sold, they would give him $20,000 for his labor and time. ¶ 16. Jaggers testified that the cost of building the house was approximately $115,000 [3] and that a new house with a construction cost should have sold for around $180,000. Thus, if he were a general contractor building this particular house, he would have made approximately $60,000 to $65,000, but he agreed to do it for $20,000 because the house was for his daughter. Jaggers hired subcontractors, including his son, Jeff Jaggers, who was a builder or carpenter. Jaggers testified that the Simmonses took out a construction loan of $115,000 and that it took about six to eight months to build the house. ¶ 17. Jaggers further testified that he expected to receive his money when the Simmonses sold the home and that Christi told him a woman from California had put up the money to buy the house. According to Jaggers, Christi told him that she and Eddie had found a condo in Florida. Jaggers went over to the Simmonses' house and asked Eddie about the condo in Florida. Eddie told him that they could not afford a condo because he had lost a lot of money gambling in Tunica. Jaggers testified that Eddie then reaffirmed the promise to pay him for building the house. ¶ 18. Wondering how much Eddie was in debt, Jaggers had an attorney examine the title of the house. The title search revealed that about three weeks after the house was completed and closed, Eddie had borrowed $15,364 against the home. Jaggers confronted Eddie who said the money was to pay back taxes. Jaggers asked Eddie if he thought it was fair to borrow $15,000 against the house Jaggers had built for his daughter. Eddie replied it was and Jaggers would still get his money. However, Eddie later called Jaggers and told him he would not get a dime, prompting Jaggers to file a lien. ¶ 19. Christi's brother, Jeff, testified that he worked on the Simmonses' house at the request of his father. During the construction of the home, Jeff heard his father and Eddie talking about how Jaggers would be paid $20,000 for his services out of the proceeds from the sale of the house. Jeff also stated that, in his opinion, a contractor would normally charge more than $20,000 to build this house. Jeff stated he had never heard his father say the house was a gift. ¶ 20. In light of the record, we find the chancellor did not commit manifest error in determining that an oral contract existed between the parties. It was the chancellor's duty to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. Jaggers's testimony, which was corroborated by the Christi's brother, Jeff, clearly established an oral contract. The evidence contradicting Jaggers's claim was primarily the testimony of Eddie and Christi Simmons, which the chancellor apparently did not find credible. Furthermore, the Simmonses contradicted each other on at least one point. Eddie testified that he and Christi never considered buying a condo in Florida, while Christi testified that they did and in fact had been to Florida to look at condos. While perhaps a small point, this inconsistency further supports the chancellor's evaluation of the witnesses' credibility.