unclean hands doctrine in Mississippi

2021As cited by the Appellants, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held: The doctrine of unclean hands provides that “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” Thigpen v. Kennedy, 238 So. 2d 744, 746 (Miss. 1970).

2020Ct. App. 2015), this Court recognized that “[t]he doctrine of unclean hands provides that ‘he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.’” Id. (quoting Thigpen v. Kennedy, 238 So. 2d 744, 746 (Miss.1970)).

2017Williams also raises the unclean hands doctrine as a defense. "[T]he clean hands doctrine prevents a complaining party from obtaining equitable relief in court" only if the party "is guilty of willful misconduct in the transaction at issue." Scruggs v. Wyatt , 60 So.3d 758 , 772 (¶ 34) (Miss. 2011) (quoting Bailey v. Bailey , 724 So.2d 335 , 337 (¶ 6) (Miss. 1998) ). ¶ 17.

2011The Scruggs Defendants respond that Wyatt did not present an “unclean hands” argument in the circuit court and, furthermore, that “for the unclean hands doctrine to bar recovery, the party seeking relief must be ‘guilty of willful misconduct in the transaction at issue.’ ” See Bailey v. Bailey, 724 So.2d 335, 337 (Miss.1998).

2023The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that the unclean hands doctrine means that “no person as a complaining party can have the aid of a court of equity when his conduct with respect to the transaction in question has been characterized by wilful inequity.” In re Est. of Richardson, 903 So. 2d 51, 55 (¶15) (Miss. 2005) (quoting O’Neill v. O’Neill, 551 So.2d 228, 233 (Miss. 1989)).

2019“The doctrine of unclean hands provides that ‘he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.’” In re Estate of Richardson, 903 So. 2d 51, 55 (¶15) (Miss. 2005) (citing Thigpen v. Kennedy, 238 So. 2d 744, 746 (Miss. 1970)). ¶33.

2021In O’Neill v. O’Neill, 551 So. 2d 228, 233 (Miss. 1989), this Court further expounded upon the meaning of unclean hands, stating: “[t]he meaning of this maxim is to declare that no person as a complaining party can have the aid of a court of equity when his conduct with respect to the transaction in question has been characterized by wilful inequity. . . .” The Court in Brennan v. Brennan, 605 So. 2d 749, 752 (Miss. 1992), held that “[t]he maxim should 6 be applied by the court sua sponte where it is shown to be applicable.” See also Estate of Van Ryan v. McMurtray, 505 So. 2d 1015, 1019 (Miss

2020Although collateral estoppel is inapplicable, Alcatec’s complaint should be dismissed based on the doctrine of unclean hands,5 the doctrine of in pari delicto,6 and/or the wrongful conduct rule.7 The Jones Group failed to plead these defenses as well,8 but our Supreme 5 See, e.g., Estate of Van Ryan v. McMurtray, 505 So. 2d 1015, 1019 (Miss. 1987) (holding that the unclean hands doctrine barred fiduciaries’ claims for quantum meruit damages because they “had violated their fiduciary duties by taking money to which they were not entitled”). 6 See Greenline Equip.

2025As this Court has recognized, “[t]he doctrine of unclean hands provides that ‘he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.’” Vincent v. Rickman, 167 So. 3d 245, 249 (¶11) (Miss.

2020Ct. App. 2015), this Court recognized that “[t]he doctrine of unclean hands provides that ‘he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.’” Id. (quoting Thigpen v. Kennedy, 238 So. 2d 744, 746 (Miss.1970)).

2023The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that the unclean hands doctrine means that “no person as a complaining party can have the aid of a court of equity when his conduct with respect to the transaction in question has been characterized by wilful inequity.” In re Est. of Richardson, 903 So. 2d 51, 55 (¶15) (Miss. 2005) (quoting O’Neill v. O’Neill, 551 So.2d 228, 233 (Miss. 1989)).

2021In O’Neill v. O’Neill, 551 So. 2d 228, 233 (Miss. 1989), this Court further expounded upon the meaning of unclean hands, stating: “[t]he meaning of this maxim is to declare that no person as a complaining party can have the aid of a court of equity when his conduct with respect to the transaction in question has been characterized by wilful inequity. . . .” The Court in Brennan v. Brennan, 605 So. 2d 749, 752 (Miss. 1992), held that “[t]he maxim should 6 be applied by the court sua sponte where it is shown to be applicable.” See also Estate of Van Ryan v. McMurtray, 505 So. 2d 1015, 1019 (Miss

2021In O’Neill v. O’Neill, 551 So. 2d 228, 233 (Miss. 1989), this Court further expounded upon the meaning of unclean hands, stating: “[t]he meaning of this maxim is to declare that no person as a complaining party can have the aid of a court of equity when his conduct with respect to the transaction in question has been characterized by wilful inequity. . . .” The Court in Brennan v. Brennan, 605 So. 2d 749, 752 (Miss. 1992), held that “[t]he maxim should 6 be applied by the court sua sponte where it is shown to be applicable.” See also Estate of Van Ryan v. McMurtray, 505 So. 2d 1015, 1019 (Miss

2005In O'Neill v. O'Neill, 551 So.2d 228 , 233 (Miss.1989), this Court further expounded upon the meaning of unclean hands, stating: "[t]he meaning of this maxim is to declare that no person as a complaining party can have the aid of a court of equity when his conduct with respect to the transaction in question has been characterized by wilful inequity...." The Court in Brennan v. Brennan, 605 So.2d 749, 752 (Miss.1992), held that "[t]he maxim should be applied by the court sua sponte where it is shown to be applicable." See also Estate of Van Ryan v. McMurtray, 505 So.2d 1015, 1019 (Miss.1987) ("

2022“The doctrine of unclean hands provides that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” Pruitt v. Payne, 14 So. 3d 806, 811 (¶13) (Miss.

2020Co. v. McLaurin, 108 Miss. 273, 278 , 66 So. 739, 740 (1914) (“The principle of public policy is that no court will lend its aid to a party who grounds his action upon an 24 “Court has held that when it is evident by the facts of the case that the unclean hands doctrine is applicable, the [court] has a duty to apply that doctrine of its own motion.” Estate of Van Ryan, 505 So. 2d at 1019 (emphasis added); accord, e.g., Estate of Nelson v. Nelson, 266 So. 3d 1008, 1018 (¶36) (Miss.

2020Co. v. McLaurin, 108 Miss. 273, 278 , 66 So. 739, 740 (1914) (“The principle of public policy is that no court will lend its aid to a party who grounds his action upon an 24 “Court has held that when it is evident by the facts of the case that the unclean hands doctrine is applicable, the [court] has a duty to apply that doctrine of its own motion.” Estate of Van Ryan, 505 So. 2d at 1019 (emphasis added); accord, e.g., Estate of Nelson v. Nelson, 266 So. 3d 1008, 1018 (¶36) (Miss.

2020However, we also find instructive the principle that “[t]he doctrine of unclean hands cannot override the chancellor’s duty to award custody in the best interests of the 32 child.” Shelton v. Shelton, 653 So. 2d 283, 287 (Miss. 1995).

2020Co. v. McLaurin, 108 Miss. 273, 278 , 66 So. 739, 740 (1914) (“The principle of public policy is that no court will lend its aid to a party who grounds his action upon an 24 “Court has held that when it is evident by the facts of the case that the unclean hands doctrine is applicable, the [court] has a duty to apply that doctrine of its own motion.” Estate of Van Ryan, 505 So. 2d at 1019 (emphasis added); accord, e.g., Estate of Nelson v. Nelson, 266 So. 3d 1008, 1018 (¶36) (Miss.

2020Consequently, . . . the issue is not properly before this Court on appeal.” In Bardwell v. White, 762 So. 2d 778, 783 (¶32) (Miss.

2020Co. v. Covington County Bank, 873 So. 2d 950, 958 (¶26) (Miss. 2002) (holding that the doctrine of in pari delicto barred a party found liable for conversion from recovering from an alleged joint tortfeasor); In Pari Delicto Doctrine, Black’s Law Dictionary 944 (11th ed. 2019) (“The principle that a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing may not recover damages resulting from the wrongdoing.”); 27A Am.

2020Co. v. Covington County Bank, 873 So. 2d 950, 958 (¶26) (Miss. 2002) (holding that the doctrine of in pari delicto barred a party found liable for conversion from recovering from an alleged joint tortfeasor); In Pari Delicto Doctrine, Black’s Law Dictionary 944 (11th ed. 2019) (“The principle that a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing may not recover damages resulting from the wrongdoing.”); 27A Am.

2018In turning to the case before us, we recognize that “[a] wrongful death beneficiary may bring suit with or without the knowledge and agreement of the remaining beneficiaries or estate representative.” Willing v. Estate of Benz, 958 So. 2d 1240, 1256 (¶44) (Miss.

2018In turning to the case before us, we recognize that "[a] wrongful death beneficiary may bring suit with or without the knowledge and agreement of the remaining beneficiaries or estate representative." Willing v. Estate of Benz , 958 So.2d 1240 , 1256 (¶ 44) (Miss.

2018See, e.g. , Morgan v. Wright , 219 Ga. 385 , 133 S.E.2d 341 , 343 (1963) (holding that an action to recover an engagement ring given to a married woman was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands).

2018See, e.g. , Morgan v. Wright , 219 Ga. 385 , 133 S.E.2d 341 , 343 (1963) (holding that an action to recover an engagement ring given to a married woman was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands).

2015The supreme court has further explained the meaning of unclean hands, stating that “[t]he clean[-]hands doctrine prevents a complaining party from obtaining equitable relief in court when he is guilty of willful misconduct in the transaction at issue.” Bailey v. Bailey, 724 So.2d 335, 337 (¶ 6) (Miss.1998); see also Mitchell v. Mitchell, 67 So.3d 861, 863 (¶¶ 7-8) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (doctrine of unclean hands serves a defense to contempt actions). ¶ 12.

2012Unclean Hands ¶ 30 Rosemary asserts the chancery court erred by modifying the alimony and child support payments while Stewart had “unclean hands.” The doctrine of unclean hands “prevents a complainant from petitioning the court to modify an original decree absent proof that said complainant has fully performed under the terms of the original decree or, in the alternative, that full performance thereunder has been wholly impossible.” Dill, 908 So.2d at 202 (¶ 11) (citing Kincaid v. Kincaid, 213 Miss. 451, 456 , 57 So.2d 263, 265 (1952)).

2012Unclean Hands ¶ 30 Rosemary asserts the chancery court erred by modifying the alimony and child support payments while Stewart had “unclean hands.” The doctrine of unclean hands “prevents a complainant from petitioning the court to modify an original decree absent proof that said complainant has fully performed under the terms of the original decree or, in the alternative, that full performance thereunder has been wholly impossible.” Dill, 908 So.2d at 202 (¶ 11) (citing Kincaid v. Kincaid, 213 Miss. 451, 456 , 57 So.2d 263, 265 (1952)).

2012Unclean Hands ¶ 30 Rosemary asserts the chancery court erred by modifying the alimony and child support payments while Stewart had “unclean hands.” The doctrine of unclean hands “prevents a complainant from petitioning the court to modify an original decree absent proof that said complainant has fully performed under the terms of the original decree or, in the alternative, that full performance thereunder has been wholly impossible.” Dill, 908 So.2d at 202 (¶ 11) (citing Kincaid v. Kincaid, 213 Miss. 451, 456 , 57 So.2d 263, 265 (1952)).

2008Bailey v. Bailey, 724 So.2d 335, 337 (¶ 6) (Miss.1998) (citing Calcote v. Calcote, 583 So.2d 197, 199-200 (Miss.1991)). “[A] husband may not petition for modification of the original decree without showing either that he has performed it or that his performance has been wholly impossible....

2001Thornhill v. Chapman, 748 So.2d 819, 826 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999).

1999McClellan v. McCauley, 158 Miss. 456 , 130 So. 145, 149 (1930).

1999McClellan v. McCauley, 158 Miss. 456 , 130 So. 145, 149 (1930).