Ross, et al. v. National Forms & Sys. Group, Inc., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01182-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-01182-COA ; 2002-CT-01182-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-22-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Fiduciary duties - Discovery violations Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-16-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: VERDICT IN FAVOR OF NATIONAL ON ALL COUNTS FOR $1,744,937 IN COMPENSATORY DAMAGES & $750,000 IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES. LATER AMENDED TO INCLUDE $645,119 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES & EXPENSES AND A JUDGMENT OF $3,140,056. |
|
| Note: | Link Inactive | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Timothy V. Ross, Todd Ross and Champion Industries, Inc. |
APRIL D. REEVES
DAVID LEE SANDEFUR
NEVILLE H. BOSCHERT
LAURA L. GIBBES |
||
| Appellee: | National Forms & Systems Group, Inc. and Mickey McCardle | REUBEN V. ANDERSON GARY E. FRIEDMAN JAMES W. CRAIG |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Fiduciary duties - Discovery violations |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. National Forms & Systems Group, Inc. and Mickey McCardle filed suit against Tim Ross, Todd Ross and Champion Industries for conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duties. A verdict was returned in favor of National Forms and McCardle on all counts for $1,744,937 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages. The verdict was later amended to include $645,119 in attorney’s fees and expenses for a total judgment of $3,140,056. Ross appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Fiduciary duties Ross argues that the court erred in granting motions for directed verdict in favor of National on the issues of whether or not Tim Ross was president of National from July 1999 until April 2000 and whether or not Tim Ross had fiduciary duties to National as a result. National presented evidence that Tim had signed numerous documents as president including lease agreements, credit applications, website applications and checks. National even had proof that in his resignation letter, he resigned as president of National. Most of Tim’s evidence showed that while Tim may have held himself out as president of the company to third parties he had no actual control of the company the way a true president of a corporation would. McCardle, who is not a third party, would have known of Tim’s limitations. The conflicting evidence creates a question of fact. Therefore, the decision of the judge granting the directed verdict in favor of National on the issue of Tim Ross’s presidency and his resulting fiduciary duties was in error. Issue 2: Discovery violations Tim argues that the court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss for numerous misrepresentations during discovery by National and McCardle regarding a prior lawsuit between McCardle and Fromcraft, McCardle’s prior employer. The court should dismiss a cause of action for failure to comply with discovery only under the most extreme circumstances. Here, Tim did not offer support that the misrepresentation made by National and McCardle during discovery were manifestly false to an extent requiring dismissal. Therefore, it was not an abuse of the judge’s discretion to deny dismissal because of those discovery violations. National argues on rehearing that the issue of the duty owed, if any, by Ross to National, is the only one that should be remanded. A reversal solely of part of a judgment occasionally occurs, but only when the reversal is due to an error that an appellate court can with confidence find could not have affected other contested issues in the case. That is not the case here. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
