IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
, PLAINTIFF
V. NO.
, DEFENDANTS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, , a Mississippi corporation with its principal place of business in ,
County, Mississippi, files this its suit against Defendants, and and in support
thereof states the following:
Parties and Venue
1. Plaintiff is a Mississippi corporation with its principal office in ,
County, Mississippi.
2. is a Mississippi corporation having its principal place of business in ,
Mississippi, and may be served with process by serving its agent for process, . is an
adult resident citizen of , Mississippi, who may be served with process at .
3. This cause of action arises out of a contract to be performed in County,
Mississippi, and a tort which occurred in said county.
FACTS
4. In , was the general contractor for the construction of between
and in , Mississippi. , a real estate developer, owned acres
located on in County, Mississippi, which required filling to a certain elevation to
be commercially developed. contacted and requested that allow it to use the
property to dump construction debris, but declined, stating that the property was to be
developed as a retail center, which would preclude the use of such fill materials as construction
debris.
5. and executed a Letter Agreement under date of ,
, Exhibit attached, which provided that , in consideration of an ownership
interest, would fill the property to, the agreed elevation by , with soil
materials which would contain no construction debris or refuse. Subsequently, the parties
entered into a Limited Partnership Agreement dated , , a copy of which is
attached as Exhibit .
6. Said Limited Partnership Agreement specified that the Partnership was organized
to "own, improve, and hold for investment or development certain real property to be
contributed to the partnership by the General Partner"( ) and that the fill material would
"consist solely of native soil materials and not include any type of construction debris or refuse."
7. Shortly after the execution of said letter, commenced filling the property,
but, unknown to , and caused land to be filled with construction
debris, broken concrete pavement, broken asphalt pavement, steel reinforcing bars, bridge
members, timbers, bricks, tree stumps, and other unsuitable material, which made the land
completely unfit for economical commercial development of any kind. Said Defendants
fraudulently caused said improper construction debris to be covered with soil material, thus
concealing said gross, wanton, and intentional breach of contract in order fraudulently to induce
to accept said performance.
8. deliberately used land as a dump for a large amount of the
construction debris generated as a result of performance of its contract for the
construction of the new Project from to . Said illegal, unauthorized and
fraudulent misuse of property not only destroyed the ability of to develop the
property in an economically feasible manner, but, on information and belief, it also resulted in
huge savings for in its cost of completing said highway construction project by
eliminating the need to purchase dumping privileges for unwanted construction debris and
avoiding potentially expensive longer hauls to sites where the debris from said construction
project could be legally dumped.
9. and falsely represented to that had properly completed
its duties under the Limited Partnership Agreement; and, relying on said representation,
paid $ to in consideration of release of its rights in the Partnership property.
10. Further relying on assurances of performance, and believing that
had completed the performance, sold to acres on the corner of said property
from . entered a lease with , required build a building and parking lot
to the specifications of said tenant on said acre tract.
11. As a result of tests conducted by soil engineers employed by said tenant, ,
and first became aware of the concealed construction debris buried on the site and,
accordingly, were required to completely excavate the building site at its own expense and, to
date, has expended approximately $ to do so. Additionally, said tenant has made demand
on for liquidated damages and substantial unspecified expenses incurred by said tenant
rectifying the problems in the fill caused by the construction debris in the tenant's parking lot
area. Also, as a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, the value of
remaining property has been reduced by approximately ($ ). On information and
belief, it would cost in excess of $ to remove the fill placed on Plaintiff's property by
Defendants and replace it with soil that met the specifications of the contract between Plaintiff
and . The curative work required to be done resulted in a delay of months in
opening the store which resulted in a loss of rent and liability for liquidated damages. Said fill
condition also caused substantial questions to be raised as to the suitability of the remaining site
for development, thus resulting in further damages to .
12. , and personally, fraudulently and, with intent to deceive ,
deliberately placed, or caused to be placed, the organic material, rubble, broken concrete
pavement, broken asphalt pavement, steel reinforcing bars, bridge members, timbers, bricks and
other unacceptable materials on property and concealed their actions from . Said
fraudulent concealment was done with the intent to defraud into believing that was
properly performing its duties under the Letter Agreement and the Limited Partnership
Agreement, so that would not require Defendants to cease said flagrant destruction of
property values, and to believe that it had completed its contract with and thus to
obtain the compensation it claimed was due under its agreement with . , acting in
reliance on said fraudulent concealment, failed to stop Defendants from the continued dumping
on its land and also executed a release under the terms of which paid $ in
exchange for its interest in the land. If had been aware of the condition of said soil, it
would not have executed said release and paid said $ .
13. Defendants knew full well that their actions in using valuable commercial
property on as a dumpsite for their construction debris would substantially destroy the
commercial value of said property. Not only is the soil rendered too unstable for construction,
but the presence of large chunks of concrete and other debris prevent the economical
construction of foundations, utility lines, streets, parking areas and other excavation required by
a commercial development. Said wanton and deliberate destruction of the value of
property, along with the intentional and fraudulent concealment thereof, constitutes a separate
tort for which Defendants are liable in actual and punitive damages.
COUNT I
Breach of Contract
14. , under the Letter Agreement attached as Exhibit A and the Limited
Partnership Agreement attached as Exhibit B, had a duty to fill land with native soil
materials only and not with construction debris or refuse. deliberately and intentionally
breached its agreement and did, in fact, place a substantial amount of construction debris on the
said land. As a direct and proximate result of said breach of contract, has been damaged
in the amount of not less than $ .
Wherefore, demands judgment against for all damages suffered as a result
of said breach of contract in the sum of at least $ , plus prejudgment interest and costs.
COUNT II
Intentional Tort
15. , and fraudulently, deliberately, intentionally, and with actual
malice destroyed the value of land by burying and concealing large amounts of
construction debris and refuse on said land which rendered it unsuitable for commercial
development without the expenditure of large sums of money for rectification. Said ,
and , fraudulently and with the intent to deceive Plaintiff then caused said
construction debris to be concealed from and its agents. Said unauthorized and concealed
placing of construction debris on said property without their consent constitutes a trespass and
was accompanied by such flagrant, malicious and outrageous conduct as to constitute a separate
and independent tort for which said Defendants are liable for actual damages in the amount of
($ ) and punitive damages in the same amount, ($ ).
ACCOUNT III
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
16. As a result of the execution of Exhibits A and B, and the trust and confidence
placed in in the joint development of the property as partners, owed a
fiduciary duty to in this matter. concealed, deliberate, and malicious destruction of
value of property for its own gain constitutes a breach of said fiduciary duty, for which
is liable for actual and punitive damages.
COUNT IV
Damages and Indemnity for Curative Work
17. As a direct and proximate result of their wrongful actions herein, Defendants
jointly and severally are liable to indemnify for its expenses to date for the curative work
on said acre tract in the amount of ($ ) and for any further payments it may
be required to make to for curative work on said soil, which is estimated to be
($ ). In the alternative, Defendants are liable to for indemnity to for all
expenses which incurred in said curative work.
Wherefore, and demand judgment against , and , jointly
and severally for all damages proximately caused by their said wrongful acts in an amount of not
less than ($ ) plus prejudgment interest, costs and such punitive damages of not less
than ($ ) for a total judgment of not less than ($ ).
Plaintiff also demands that the Defendants be ordered to repay to the Plaintiff the
sum of $ for said Release, plus interest, and that the parties be restored to the status quo
ante.
COUNT V
DECLARATORY RELIEF
Plaintiff would show the Release referred to in Defendants' Fourth Affirmative
Defense was obtained by the fraud of the Defendant, , in that it deliberately
misrepresented to the Plaintiff, , that Defendant had complied with the letter agreement
attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "A" and the Limited Partnership Agreement attached
thereto as Exhibit MBM. Specifically, Defendant intentionally misled Plaintiff into
believing that there was no construction debris or any materials other than native soils in the said
fill when in fact said Defendant had caused to be placed in said fill huge amounts of said
construction debris, as all has been set forth in more detail above. Because of said intentional
fraud of Defendant , this Court should declare that the said Release is void and of no effect
and that the Defendant, , has failed to fulfill its contract with Plaintiff and that it be
ordered to return to Plaintiff, , the $ paid as a result of said fraud and the parties be
restored to the status quo ante.
Wherefore, Plaintiff demands:
Judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for all damages proximately caused by
Defendants' conduct and punitive damages in the sum of $ ; and
Judgment declaring that (1) the Release executed by Plaintiff and be declared
void; that (2) must return the $ paid for said Release with interest to Plaintiff; that
(3) has failed to fulfill its duties under the Limited Partnership Agreement with Plaintiff;
and that (4) the parties are returned to the position in which they were prior to the execution of
the Release.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________
Attorney for
Of counsel:
Telephone:
MSB #
Attorney for
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, , hereby certify that I have this day mailed via United States mail, postage
prepaid, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document to , and to .
This the day of , 20 .
_________________________________