 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sligh v. First National Bank of Holmes County2/4/1999
nd all or any part of the income of corpus of said trust property... for the benefit of Gene Lorance...; (B) make payments directly to Lorance or to anyone for him; (C) invest, reinvest, manage and care for said property...; (D) all powers conferred by the Uniform Trustees Powers Act.
These duties, FNB asserts, simply involved the handling of money and nothing more. FNB provided a stipend to Lorance for his living expenses. Additionally, FNB paid for repairs to the roof of his parent's house. Lorance paid his own bills and took care of himself. FNB relies on the testimony of Gene Lorance wherein he stated that FNB in no way controlled the affairs of his life.
. FNB cites Deposit Guaranty Nat'l Bank v. First Nat'l Bank of Jackson, 352 So. 2d 1324, 1327 (Miss. 1977) for the proposition that "It is undisputed that under controlling law an unambiguous contract, such as the trust documents at issue, are to be interpreted and enforced based solely on the four corners of the document. FNB asserts that as the Lorance trust documents clearly and unambiguously set forth the limited responsibilities, the Slighs efforts to expand upon these duties are barred as a matter of law.
. FNB addresses each contention of the Slighs. First, the Slighs claim that FNB should not have provided the monthly living expenses which would have prevented Lorance from having alcohol money. FNB argues that this claim fails because Lorance was already receiving disability checks from the government.
. Second, FNB argues that the Slighs allege on appeal for the first time that FNB should have Lorance declared incompetent by a court order to prevent him from driving. Citing Touart v. Johnston, 656 So. 2d 318, 321 (Miss. 1995), FNB states that this Court has long followed the rule, however, that an "appellant is not entitled to raise new issues on appeal since to do so denies the trial court the opportunity to address the matter." However, in further addressing the matter, relying on the deposition of Gene Lorance, he testified that FNB had no knowledge of his alleged prior accidents. FNB submits that it had no such duty or ability under the trust provisions to have him declared incompetent.
. Third, FNB addresses the financing of the truck. The Slighs assert FNB is responsible for the accident because FNB financed the truck. Citing Grisham v. John Q. Long VFW Post, 519 So. 2d 413, 417 (Miss. 1988), FNB states that Mississippi law is well settled that "the proximate cause of an injury is that cause which in natural and continuing sequence unbroken by an efficient intervening cause produced the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. FNB notes that Lorance already owned a vehicle at the time of the loan in question.
. FNB argues that no duty to the Slighs existed. FNB relies on Stanley v. Morgan & Lindsey, Inc., 203 So. 2d 473, 475 (Miss. 1967) for the proposition that some duty must exist between a plaintiff and defendant before recovery will be allowed, stating "actionable negligence cannot exist in the absence of a legal duty to the plaintiff." In the absence of any such duty, the existence of which is a question of law to be answered by the court, judgment for the defendant is necessary. Morgan & Lindsey, 203 So. 2d at 475. FNB contends that the Slighs have not identified any duty allegedly owed to them by FNB. . In addressing negligent entrustment FNB cites § 390 of Restatement (Second) Torts which provides:
One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience or otherwise, to use it in a manner involv
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|