Hopper v. Daniel

I respectfully dissent from the opinion affirming the chancellor’s decision in this case. I cannot agree that the chancellor applied the proper law and that he did not limit his determination solely to finding whether appellees were required to have “actual knowledge” of appellants’ adverse claim. Further, I would hold that limiting fees for appellants’ attorney to $2000 was an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion and was contrary to law.

The majority has concluded that, although the chancellor’s order was “inartfully written,” he apparently intended to say that he denied Hopper’s claim of…