IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2017-CA-00978-SCT
T. MARK SLEDGE
v.
GRENFELL SLEDGE AND STEVENS, PLLC d/b/a
GRENFELL & STEVENS, PLLC, JAMES B.
GRENFELL AND JOHN HUNTER STEVENS,
INDIVIDUALLY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/19/2017
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. M. RONALD DOLEAC
TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: WILLIAM C. WALTER
STEVEN HISER FUNDERBURG
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: T. JACKSON LYONS
MARC E. BRAND
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: STEVEN H. FUNDERBURG
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/13/2018
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE WALLER, C.J., COLEMAN AND MAXWELL, JJ.
COLEMAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Upon the withdrawal of T. Mark Sledge from the law firm Grenfell Sledge and
Stevens, PLLC, an issue arose regarding the fee distribution for several of the firm’s and
Sledge’s cases, more specifically, the interpretation of the firm’s partnership agreements and
related documents. Sledge filed suit against his former firm and its individual members.
Following a hearing, the Hinds County Chancery Court granted the motion for summary
judgment filed by Grenfell Sledge and Stevens, PLLC, and its individual members and also
a declaratory judgment in their favor. Sledge challenges the chancery court’s rulings;
however, we are unpersuaded by his arguments on appeal and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. On April 3, 2014, James Grenfell, T. Mark Sledge, and John H. Stevens executed a
“Supplement to Partnership Agreement For Grenfell, Sledge & Stevens”1 (Supplement
Agreement) to address the division of fees in general and, more specifically, the division of
fees and firm property in the event of death, disability, retirement, withdrawal of firm
members, and/or dissolution of the firm. The Supplement Agreement became effective on
January 1, 2014, although it was not executed until April 3, 2014.
¶3. According to the Supplement Agreement’s section providing for the division of fees,
Grenfell Sledge and Stevens, PLLC, agreed that,
Beginning January 1, 2014, cases signed up after that date, not related to joint
firm advertisement, the said partner that obtained case or fee generated
therefrom will be entitled to fifty percent . . . of the fee as compensation from
the case, from the total fee to the firm, with the remaining fifty percent . . . to
be divided per the prior partnership agreement [or one-third] each after the
payment of overhead and expenses. We recognize that on these individual
cases the partner who has the case is responsible for fifty percent . . . of the
case specific expenses until settlement. The remaining fifty percent . . .
expenses will be paid from the general partnership fund. . . . The Agreement
set forth above will take place in the year 2014 and in the year 2015 the partner
obtaining the case or generating the fee will be entitled to sixty percent . . . of
the fee and be responsible for sixty percent . . . of the expenses on each case
under the same terms as set forth above. In 2016, the generating partner’s
percentage will increase to seventy percent . . . of the fees and expenses as set
forth above. In 2017, the generating partner’s percentage will increase to
eighty percent . . . as set forth above. In 2018, the generating partner’s
percentage will increase to ninety percent . . . as set forth above. In 2019 and
1
Although titled as a supplement, the document indicated that any prior agreement
was either oral or lost.
2
in subsequent years, the generating partner will be entitled to one hundred
percent . . . of the fees they generated and will be responsible for one hundred
percent . . . of the expenses on each case.
Additionally, each member was required to pay one-third of the expenses for operation of the
common office-operation expenses.
¶4. The Supplement Agreement also contained a provision for how fees would be handled
in the event of the death, disability, retirement, or withdrawal of a member. According to the
provision,
Should a member of this partnership retire, withdraw, die or become
permanently unable to practice law, fees from cases that he leaves with the
firm will be handled by the remaining partner(s) and he or his estate or
representative will receive one-half . . . of any fees from cases resolved in the
first six . . . months following his departure or one-third . . . of the fees
generated from cases remaining with the firm thereafter. Said . . . withdrawn
. . . partner will receive compensation only on his cases or on cases obtained
through advertising and referred to other law firms as addressed below. . . .
Cases that were advertised for and referred to other attorneys . . . will
continue to be divided one-third . . . , one-third . . . , one-third . . . , whenever
resolved, unless the referred case results in substantial work for the remaining
partner(s). . . . Where advertisement is ongoing at the time of . . . withdrawal,
the departing partner will be entitled to fees from, and only from, cases that are
signed up prior to his . . . withdrawal.
Fees from cases obtain[ed] through joint firm advertisement . . . will
continue to be divided equally between the partners. . . .
Last, but also important, the Supplement Agreement stated, “Any dispute or decision related
to this agreement or partnership shall be settled by a majority vote of the partners.”
¶5. Then, on April 30, 2014, Grenfell, Sledge, and Stevens amended the Supplement
Agreement because it “did not address each partner[’]s case inventory of individual existing
cases in the office before January 2014[.]” The Amended Supplement Agreement explained,
3
“From this day forward each partner will receive [fifty] percent of the fees brought into the
firm of any case considered an individual case that was signed up before [January] 2014.
The remaining [fifty] percent will be divided [twenty-five] percent to each of the other [two]
partners.”
¶6. The group operated as such until Sledge provided notice to the others that he was
withdrawing from the firm effective August 4, 2015. According to Sledge, he was “forced”
to withdraw from the firm “[d]ue to the intentional actions of members Grenfell and Stevens,
including harassment, false accusations, breach of good faith and fair dealings and threats
of litigation directed toward Sledge[.]”
¶7. Following an unsuccessful mediation attempt on August 21, 2015, Grenfell and
Stevens, as the remaining members of the firm, executed a “Joint Resolution of Grenfell,
Sledge & Stevens, PLLC” (Joint Resolution), addressing Sledge’s withdrawal from the firm.
According to the Joint Resolution, “Sledge has . . . taken the position that he had withdrawn
from the Firm, that he is taking all of his caseload with him and that the Firm is not entitled
to fees from these cases, regardless of firm resources used on said cases.” However, “[t]he
Firm’s position is that it was never the intent of the parties to allow a partner to withdraw
from the Firm and take all of his cases with him, without owing fees to the Firm, and that the
Supplement Agreement is clear.” The Joint Resolution referred back to the Supplement
Agreement’s language that any dispute related to the Supplement Agreement is to be settled
by a majority vote of the members. Then, the Joint Resolution contained the following
language:
4
[T]he majority of the partners/members hereby resolve the dispute as follows:
As discussed and promoted by all three . . . members in mediation, we
will agree to allow Mark Sledge to retain 100% of any fees on all cases in his
caseload as of August 4, 2015, subject to reimbursement of any expenses
incurred by the Firm before August 4, 2015, to the Firm and excepting specific
cases as follows: 1. the O’Quinn case, 2) the Firm BP case and 3) the Burkes
Case . . . .
As a compromise and what the majority partners believe to be a
reasonable resolution to the dispute each individual attorney will keep any fees
generated from his caseload after August 4, 2015, and any fees from the three
. . . disputed cases (O’Quinn, Firm BP and Burkes) will be divided equally
(with James Grenfell, Mark Sledge and John Stevens each receiving 1/3) upon
resolution.
Lastly, the Joint Resolution provided,
The majority of the members acknowledge and agree that the offered
compromise is made in an attempt to resolve this matter . . . . However, if the
terms of this proposal are not accepted, then the Firm and Grenfell and
Stevens, individually, will rely on the terms of the Partnership Agreement as
written and as voted on by the majority of the partners, and enforce this
Agreement and Resolution as necessary.
Sledge did not agree with or sign the Joint Resolution.
¶8. Sledge sued the firm and its remaining members, Grenfell and Stevens. In his
complaint, Sledge sought a declaratory judgment “to declare the rights, duties, obligations
and legal status of the party under the [firm’s operating] agreements . . . and to declare
Sledge’s entitlement to the assets retained by the [firm] which were legally owed to him.”2
Moreover, Sledge requested an accounting of fees from the cases existing at the time of his
2
After the firm and Grenfell filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mississippi Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,
the trial court dismissed Sledge’s first complaint, allowing him leave to amend his
complaint. Sledge filed an amended complaint.
5
withdrawal from the firm, an accounting of all the trust funds held by the firm at the time of
his withdrawal, an accounting of all expenses incurred on cases existing at the time of his
withdrawal, and an accounting “for all sums due pursuant to the partnership [a]greement .
. . that are being unlawfully held by the Defendants.” Sledge also requested equitable and
injunctive relief, more specifically, “a money [j]udgment for draws not paid and Sledge’s
share of the proceeds from the aforesaid cases settled before August 4, 2015 but paid after
said date.” Sledge requested that the trial court “order and enjoin” the firm to list office
property at a “reasonable selling price” as opposed to the 12.5 percent above appraisal that
was the current list price at that time. Last, Sledge claimed that the “Defendants have . . .
breached the terms of the [firm’s] agreements by withholding moneys belonging to Sledge[,
entitling him] to a judgment for such fees due him under the [firm a]greements.”
¶9. Both parties presented motions for summary judgment to the trial court, and both
parties agreed that the case was ripe for resolution through a declaratory judgment. The trial
court found in favor of the firm and granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment as to
Sledge’s request for an accounting, for equitable and injunctive relief, and for breach of
contract. According to the trial court’s declaratory judgment, the parties incorporated a
dispute-resolution provision into the Supplement Agreement by using the language that said
any dispute or decision related to the agreement or partnership “shall be settled by a majority
vote of the partners.” Therefore, the trial court rejected Sledge’s position that the Joint
Resolution was a settlement offer and concluded that Sledge was bound by the Joint
Resolution that was executed by Grenfell and Stevens consistent with the dispute-resolution
6
provision outlined in the Supplement Agreement. The trial court found “that the joint
resolution allow[ed Sledge] to retain [one hundred percent] of fees on cases contained in
plaintiff’s individual caseload as of August 4, 2015, subject to reimbursement of any
expenses incurred by [the firm] incurred before August 4, 2015 and excepting the specific
cases of (1) O’Quinn; (2) the BP claim of Grenfell, Sledge and Stevens, PLLC; and (3)
Burkes[.]” Further, “any fees from the three cases identified and discussed in the joint
resolution . . . will be divided equally between James Grenfell, Mark Sledge and John
Stevens.” Any fees from cases that were advertised for prior to Sledge’s withdrawal would
also be divided equally among the men, because such an arrangement “is fair, equitable and
required by the contract and the [Joint Resolution.]”
¶10. Sledge filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, clarification. The trial
court was unpersuaded by Sledge’s arguments and entered its order and final judgment on
June 19, 2017, reaffirming its previous findings and holdings. Additionally, because the firm
had an outstanding counterclaim that was not decided, the trial court entered a final judgment
pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), primarily based on the firm’s position
that its counterclaim should be stayed pending appeal because, according to the firm, the
counterclaim had been filed “out of an abundance of caution and to protect [the firm’s] rights
should dispositive motions be denied and this ligation continue.”
¶11. Sledge did perfect his appeal. On appeal, Sledge raises the following issues:
I. Did the chancellor err as a matter of law in dismissing Sledge’s original
complaint for an accounting of the various cases, expenses, and income
generated by the three members of the firm in accord with its operating
agreement?
7
II. Did the chancellor err as a matter of law by failing to apply basic
contract law to the express terms of the parties’ operating agreement
governing their limited liability company?
III. Having rendered judgment denying Sledge’s claims, did the chancellor
err as a matter of law in failing to apply the express terms of
Mississippi’s Limited Liability Company Act to the operating
agreement?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶12. The Court reviews a trial court’s decision to grant or deny summary judgment using
the de novo standard. In re Guardianship of Duckett, 991 So. 2d 1165, 1173 (¶ 15) (Miss.
2008). Similarly, “while the decision to grant [declaratory judgment] relief is discretionary,
the judgment’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo on appeal.” Tellus Operating Grp.,
LLC v. Texas Petroleum Inv. Co., 105 So. 3d 274, 282-83 (¶ 31) (Miss. 2012).
ANALYSIS
I. Original Complaint
¶13. After Sledge filed his original complaint, the firm filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The trial court
granted the firm’s motion and dismissed Sledge’s complaint without prejudice. Further, the
trial court, pursuant to “Rule 12(b)(6) and [Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure] 15(a),
[found] that ‘justice so requires’ that leave to amend shall be, and is hereby granted to
Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within thirty days from the date of entry of this
Order.” (Emphasis in original.) Sledge did file an amended complaint, which the parties
litigated and is now the subject of the present appeal. However, in his first issue on appeal,
Sledge argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his original complaint that had
8
contained a request for an accounting when all of the elements to grant the requested
accounting had been present. Sledge specifically notes in his reply brief that his issue is with
the dismissal of the original complaint. “[N]one of what Grenfell says has anything to do
with whether the original complaint was correctly dismissed. . . . Sledge believes the original
complaint should be reinstated by reversing the chancellor’s order.”
¶14. The instant issue has not been squarely presented to the Court in the past; however,
we hold that the trial court’s dismissal of Sledge’s original complaint is not subject to review
on appeal. First, Sledge filed an amended complaint that contained an identical request for
an accounting and proceeded to litigate fully the amended complaint. He never attempted
to file a Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, an interlocutory appeal, or a direct
appeal from the dismissal.3 Once the trial court entered the order dismissing the complaint
with leave to amend, Sledge simply acquiesced and filed an amended complaint.
¶15. More importantly, in King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam),
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explained that “[a]n amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the
amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier
pleading.” Further, Wright and Miller supports the Fifth Circuit’s position: “[a] pleading that
has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies and remains in effect
throughout the action unless it subsequently is modified. Once an amended pleading is
3
Sledge did file a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, and in the Memorandum, he specifically argued that a complaint for an accounting
is a cause of action in itself.
9
interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case . . . .” 6 Charles
Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1476 (3d ed. 2018). Thus,
Sledge’s filing of the amended complaint, which contains no adoption or incorporation of
the original complaint, superseded his original complaint and rendered his original complaint
of no effect.
¶16. Since Sledge filed an amended complaint and since his original complaint was
superseded by his amended complaint, the issue is moot because nothing exists for the Court
to reinstate should the trial court have erroneously dismissed the complaint. “Cases in which
an actual controversy existed at trial but the controversy has expired at the time of review,
become moot.” Fails v. Jefferson Davis Cty. Pub. Sch. Bd., 95 So. 3d 1223, 1225 (¶ 13)
(Miss. 2012).
II. The Firm’s Agreements
¶17. As one of the attorneys stated at the hearing, “It is rare that parties that have a contract
dispute agree that it is a valid and enforceable, unambiguous document. . . . It is a little
unusual that you have got lawyers on both sides reading the same language and coming up
to polar opposites of the effect of it.” The dispute-resolution provision is one sentence: “Any
dispute or decision related to this agreement or partnership shall be settled by a majority vote
of the partners.” Sledge argues that the dispute-resolution provision is inapplicable because
he was no longer a partner or member of the firm, so he is not subject to any decision made
following his withdrawal, such as the Joint Resolution. Quite opposite is the firm’s position
that Sledge remains subject to the dispute-resolution provision, because the dispute is related
10
to the Supplement Agreement’s withdrawal-of a-member provision. For the reasons below,
we agree with the trial court’s adherence to the firm’s position.
¶18. First, Sledge argues that the trial court erred by failing to apply contract law and the
Revised Mississippi Limited Liability Company Act.4 Primarily, Sledge takes issue with the
trial court’s reliance on the dispute-resolution provision of the Supplement Agreement as the
basis for the finding that the Joint Resolution applied to Sledge after his withdrawal.
¶19. As part of the Revised Mississippi Limited Liability Company Act, Mississippi Code
Section 79-29-303 (Rev. 2011) provides,
A member may withdraw from a limited liability company . . . upon the written
consent of all the members. . . . Except as otherwise provided by the . . .
written operating agreement, a member who has withdrawn from or been
expelled from a limited liability company ceases to be a member of the limited
liability company and ceases to have any governance rights.
Additionally, in Mississippi Code Section 79-29-105(bb) (Rev. 2011), the Legislature
defined “withdraw” or “withdrawal” as “any voluntary act by which, pursuant to the . . .
written operating agreement, a member ceases to be a member of the limited liability
company and ceases to have any governance rights.” The Legislature defined “governance
rights” as
all of a member’s rights as a member in the limited liability company other
than financial rights . . . including without limitation: (i) the rights to
participate in the management of the limited liability company; . . . (iii) the
right to vote for or consent to matters requiring the vote of or consent of the
4
Not until after the trial court had ruled and the case was before the trial court on
reconsideration did Sledge argue that any of the provisions of the Mississippi Limited
Liability Company Act applied. The firm objected. Whether the trial court sustained or
overruled the firm’s objections to the new arguments is unclear, although it is clear that the
new arguments were considered by the trial court.
11
members, as specified in this chapter or in the certificate of formation or
operating agreement[.]
Miss. Code Ann. § 79-29-105(k) (Rev. 2011).
¶20. Sledge’s argument is that upon his withdrawal from the firm, he was “legally
incapable of participating in any decisions relating to the Firm” at the time the Joint
Resolution was signed; likewise, he was not bound by any decision made by the firm after
his withdrawal due to his lack of governance rights pursuant to the above statutes. According
to Sledge, the dispute-resolution provision, which states that “[a]ny dispute or decision
related to this agreement or partnership shall be settled by a majority vote of the partners”
unambiguously “contemplates that at the time an issue is resolved or a decision made, only
members of the Firm[, of which a withdrawn member is not,] vote.”
¶21. On the other hand, the firm argues that the trial court’s decision was correct because,
under contract law and the Revised Mississippi Limited Liability Company Act, the
Supplement Agreement’s dispute-resolution provision still applies to the instant case. First,
the firm cites the portions of the Revised Mississippi Limited Liability Company Act
allowing companies to provide exceptions to the statues through the operating agreements.
As quoted above, Section 79-29-303 provides, “Except as otherwise provided by the . . .
written operating agreement, a member who has withdrawn from or been expelled from a
limited liability company ceases to be a member of the limited liability company and ceases
to have any governance rights.” The firm contends that the dispute-resolution provision in
the Supplement Agreement is one such exception.
12
¶22. In regard to the Revised Mississippi Liability Company Act arguments, we are
persuaded by the firm’s argument and the reasoning of the trial court. During the hearing on
Sledge’s motion for reconsideration or clarification, the trial court explained that it believed
Section 79-29-303 was “somewhat subsumed” by the dispute-resolution provision,
which the [trial c]ourt has previously ruled to be binding and enforceable and
specifically with regard to the fact that the fee division remains in dispute. The
[trial c]ourt reads the statute [(Section 79-29-303)] to hold that the parties can
make exceptions either in the certificate of formation or in their operating
agreement, and the [trial c]ourt has previously found that this, essentially, is
what has occurred. . . .
Although Sledge’s withdrawal from the firm did sever his governance rights pursuant to
Section 79-29-303, Sledge continued to have governance rights as outlined in and permitted
by the dispute-resolution provision, which include his participation in a majority vote on “any
dispute or decision related to this agreement.” The instant scenario falls squarely within
Section 79-29-303 as an exception, and the dispute-resolution provision is enforceable
against Sledge. Because Sledge is subject to the dispute-resolution provision, the resulting
Joint Resolution is also binding.
¶23. Sledge’s argument under contract law is similar. He argues that the dispute-resolution
provision does not apply to disputes between members and non-members, which he was upon
his withdrawal. He relies on cases involving the application and enforcement of an
arbitration provision in a contract for a two-step analysis used “in reviewing claims relating
to contractual dispute resolution devices.” The first step is “whether there is a valid
arbitration agreement[]” or as Sledge reframes it, “does an alternative dispute resolution
provision exist in the agreement[?]” Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Gatlin, 848 So. 2d 828, 834
13
(¶ 15) (Miss. 2003). The second is “whether the parties’ dispute is within the scope of the
arbitration agreement[,]” or as reframed by Sledge, “are there contract law principles external
to the language of the dispute provision that would vitiate the agreement[?]” Id. Sledge
maintains that the first step is met because the Supplement Agreement contains a dispute-
resolution provision and the dispute in the instant case falls within the parameters of the
provision, in part. Sledge argues that the dispute-resolution provision may apply to the
dispute, but that the dispute-resolution provision still does not apply in the instant case
because the provision “expressly does not apply to anyone who is not a member. Only
disputes within the membership of the LLC are governed by the Operating Agreement.”
Sledge further argues that as a non-member, he could not be bound by the dispute-resolution
provision, so the resulting Joint Resolution was merely an “offer in compromise” that he
refused.
¶24. As the Court has explained, “we must determine whether the contract is ambiguous,
and if it is not, then it must be enforced as written. In making that determination, the Court
must review the express wording of the contract as a whole.” Epperson v. SOUTHBank,
93 So. 3d 10, 16 (¶ 17) (Miss. 2012) (internal citations omitted). In the instant case, the
parties both submit that the contract is unambiguous, but they disagree about a particular
provision. “The mere fact that the parties disagree about the meaning of a provision of a
contract does not make the contract ambiguous as a matter of law.” Id. at 16-17 (¶18)
(quoting Delta Pride Catfish, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 697 So. 2d 400, 404 (Miss. 1997)). “If
the contract is unambiguous, ‘the intention of the contracting parties should be gleaned solely
14
from the wording of the contract’ and parole evidence should not be considered.” Id. at 16
(¶ 17) (quoting Turner v. Terry, 799 So. 2d 25, 32 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2001)).
¶25. Sledge claims that the dispute-resolution provision does not apply to a non-member;
however, the Supplement Agreement, which contains the dispute-resolution provision,
specifically and almost solely addresses the withdrawal of a member and the division of fees
and property upon withdrawal. It does not follow that the parties would use the language
“[a]ny dispute or decision related to this agreement or partnership” were the dispute-
resolution provision not to apply to a withdrawn member whose withdrawal is covered in the
Supplement Agreement. Thus, based on the wording of the contract, the parties intended for
the dispute-resolution provision to be applicable in a case precisely like the instant one.
CONCLUSION
¶26. We affirm the trial court’s judgments in favor of Grenfell Sledge and Stevens, PLLC,
and the individual defendants. Sledge’s argument that he was not bound by the Supplement
Agreement’s dispute-resolution provision is not supported by the Revised Mississippi
Limited Liability Company Act or contract law; therefore, Sledge is bound by the terms of
the Supplement Agreement’s dispute-resolution provision and the resulting Joint Resolution.
¶27. AFFIRMED.
WALLER, C.J., RANDOLPH, P.J., KING, MAXWELL, BEAM,
CHAMBERLIN AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR. KITCHENS, P.J., NOT
PARTICIPATING.
15