Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent Charles Gant possessed a letter of intent to purchase property. He offered to sell the property to Grant Legacy, LLP once he completed the purchase. Grand responded to the offer by agreeing to purchase the property through an unnamed partnership entity with Respondent to be formed at a later date. The new partnership was called "Grand Legacy of Mississippi, LP (Grand-MS). After the purchase, Grand and Grand-MS claimed that Respondent stated he would not profit from the purchase and resale. The two Grands argued that Respondent had a duty to disclose his intent to profit on the original property sale, and that in failing to disclose that information, Respondent committed fraud. The trial court concluded that the Grand-MS partnership agreement contained no clause prohibiting Respondent from making a profit on the land-purchase-transaction. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent, finding he had no duty to disclose any profit made to the newly formed partnership. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the essence of this case centered around the duties limited partners owe one another and the allegation of fraud stemming from an alleged breach of those duties. The Court found no basis by which it would disturb the trial court's findings. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent.

Dr. Daniel Dare appealed a ruling of the Chancery Court that denied him the ability to intervene in the modification of a marital property agreement entered into by Paul and Sharon Stokes. Mr. and Mrs. Stokes were married in 1985. In 2007, Mrs. Stokes had an affair with Dr. Dare. Shortly after the affair began, Mr. Stokes filed for divorce. With the entry of a divorce decree, the Chancery Court incorporated a child-custody and property-settlement agreement that was "executed" by Mr. and Mrs. Stokes. Pertinent to the Supreme Court's review of this matter was a "covenant not to sue" included in the property agreement. Mr. Stokes filed a petition to modify the property agreement and sought to delete that part of the provision that barred him from bringing suit against "any other person for alienation or affection." Mrs. Stokes did not contest Mr. Stokes' petition, and the court deleted the term "any other person." Mr. Stokes then sued Dr. Dare for "alienation of affection." Dr. Dare sought to intervene in Mr. Stokes' modification matter. The court held that Dr. Dare was not a party to the divorce or the property agreement, and as such, had no legally cognizable interest in the divorce. Dr. Dare argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the modified "covenant not to sue" implicitly targeted Dr. Dare as a party, and that he should be allowed to intervene in the modification proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with the Chancery Court that Dr. Dare had no legally protected interest in the Stokes' divorce and affirmed the lower court's decision.