## Facts

- Julia and Neil Harrison built a residence and sold it to Dr. Fred L. McMillan.
- In a property condition disclosure statement, the Harrisons characterized known foundation issues as “minor.”
- After purchase, McMillan discovered significant structural and foundation defects, including extensive cracking and movement.
- McMillan incurred substantial repair expenses, yet evidence showed the home’s market value remained materially below comparable properly built homes even after repairs.
- McMillan sued for breach of contract and breach of implied warranty (habitability/fitness), alleging misrepresentation and nondisclosure of structural defects.
- A jury returned a verdict for McMillan awarding damages that included repair costs, diminution in value, and attorney’s fees (with interest).
- Post-trial, the Harrisons discovered an abandoned sewer line under the house and sought relief from judgment under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), arguing the sewer line changed causation and damages.
- The trial court denied Rule 60(b)(6) relief and awarded additional post-judgment attorney’s fees and interest.
- The Harrisons appealed, challenging liability, the damages measure as impermissible “pyramiding,” the Rule 60(b)(6) denial, and the post-judgment awards.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings that the Harrisons misrepresented or failed to disclose significant structural defects and breached contractual and implied-warranty obligations.
2. Whether the jury was improperly permitted to award duplicative damages by combining repair costs and diminution in value.
3. Whether the post-verdict discovery of an abandoned sewer line constituted “extraordinary circumstances” justifying relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).
4. Whether the trial court erred in awarding post-judgment attorney’s fees and interest.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for McMillan.
- The Court held the evidence supported findings of misrepresentation/nondisclosure and breach of contract and implied warranty by the builder-vendors.
- The Court rejected the claim of improper damages “pyramiding,” concluding the instructions and evidence supported the compensatory award.
- The Court affirmed denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief, finding no extraordinary circumstances warranting reopening the judgment.
- The Court upheld the post-judgment awards of attorney’s fees and interest.

## Legal Principles

- In the sale of a new home by a builder-vendor, Mississippi recognizes an implied warranty of habitability/fitness; adequate disclosure of known defects is relevant to compliance with that duty.
- Mischaracterizing known serious structural defects as minor can support liability for breach of contractual and implied-warranty obligations and related misrepresentation/nondisclosure theories.
- Damages for defective construction generally use either reasonable cost of repair or diminution in market value, but a compensatory award may account for both repair costs and any remaining loss in value when supported by evidence and not duplicative.
- Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) provides relief only in extraordinary circumstances; it is not a substitute for appeal and does not permit relitigation absent a showing that enforcement of the judgment would be manifestly unjust.
- Contractual attorney’s fee provisions may support awards of trial and post-judgment fees; post-judgment interest is recoverable as authorized by law.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict holding builder-vendors liable for failing to candidly disclose major foundation defects, upheld a damages award supported by evidence of repair costs and residual loss in value, denied post-judgment relief based on later-discovered conditions under the narrow Rule 60(b)(6) standard, and sustained post-judgment attorney’s fees and interest authorized by contract and law.


Harrison v. McMillan, 828 So. 2d 756 (Miss. 2002)