LAMAR D. BOND APPELLANT
LEE N. BOND AND JENNIFER M. BOND APPELLEES
OF JUDGMENT: 03/31/2017
JACKSON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT HON. MICHAEL L. FONDREN TRIAL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: E. FOLEY RANSON
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: G. CHARLES BORDIS IV JOSHUA WESLEY
GRIFFIS, P.J., FAIR AND TINDELL, JJ.
Lamar Bond spent a substantial amount of money building a
workshop and apartment on the homestead of his son and
daughter-in-law, Lee and Jennifer Bond. Lamar lived in the
apartment for a couple of years until Lee-a police
officer-discovered Lamar was using marijuana regularly. Lee
and Jennifer had Lamar removed from the property, and Lamar
ultimately brought suit against them, alleging that Lee and
Jennifer had violated an agreement that Lamar could reside on
their property for the remainder of his life.
At trial, Lee and Jennifer disputed Lamar's claim,
contending that his stay was intended to be temporary, until
his divorce was finalized. They alleged Lamar spent the money
to dissipate his assets prior to the divorce and that the
money was a gift, which was intended to be an advance on
Lee's inheritance and a project for a father and son
after years of estrangement. Lee and Jennifer further claimed
the apartment was ultimately intended to be used for visits
by extended family and not by Lamar as a permanent residence.
Lee's three brothers also testified that their father had
never told them he planned to reside in the apartment
The chancellor decided that Lee's and Jennifer's
testimonies were more credible and found that there had been
no promise to let Lamar live in the apartment indefinitely.
The court concluded that Lamar was not entitled to a
constructive trust or an equitable lien on the property. On
appeal, Lamar challenges these findings, but we find them
supported by substantial evidence and affirm.
This Court employs "a limited standard of review in
appeals from . . . chancery court[s]." Corp. Mgmt.
Inc. v. Greene County, 23 So.3d 454, 459 (¶11)
(Miss. 2009) (citing Tucker v. Prisock, 791 So.2d
190, 192 (¶10) (Miss. 2001)). As such, appellate courts
will not disturb a chancery court's factual findings
"when supported by substantial evidence unless the
[court] abused [its] discretion, was manifestly wrong,
clearly erroneous[, ] or applied an erroneous legal
standard." Id. (quoting Biglane v. Under
The Hill Corp., 949 So.2d 9, 13-14 (¶17) (Miss.
2007)). Questions of law, however, will be reviewed de novo.