Montgomery v. Stribling


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-CA-01049-COA
Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-01049-COA ; 2011-CT-01049-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-02-2012
Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded
Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Requests for admissions - M.R.C.P. 36 - Breach of contract - Fraudulent misrepresentation - Damages for emotional distress
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Carlton, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2011
Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court
Judge: John C. Gargiulo
Disposition: JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF STRIBLING FINDING NO BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD, OR UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Case Number: 09-0288
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Xiaoyan Li "Shannon" Montgomery




 JAMES L. GRAY



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Linda A. Stribling, Individually PRO SE  
    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 - Requests for admissions - M.R.C.P. 36 - Breach of contract - Fraudulent misrepresentation - Damages for emotional distress
    Summary of the Facts: Xiaoyan Li “Shannon” Montgomery brought claims for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment against several defendants: Russell Benet, doing business as Lagniappe Construction and Real Estate Consulting, LLC; Linda Stribling, individually; and Elite Modular Structures, LLC. The circuit court granted Montgomery a summary judgment against Benet in the amount of $84,929. Prior to trial, Montgomery asked to dismiss Elite because the LLC had not been formed until after the events that are the subject of this litigation. Montgomery filed a motion for summary judgment against Stribling and a motion for the circuit court to deem admitted the requests for admission, pursuant to M.R.C.P. 36. Stribling never filed a motion to withdraw or amend the admissions. The circuit court denied both motions. After a bench trial, the circuit court entered a judgment in favor of Stribling. Montgomery appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Requests for admissions Montgomery argues that the trial court abused its discretion to deny her motion to deem the requests for admissions to be admitted. M.R.C.P. 36 is to be enforced according to its terms. Matters admitted by default under Rule 36(a) are established unless and until the trial court allows amendment or withdrawal by motion under Rule 36(b). Here, Stribling did not move to amend or withdraw the admissions, even though Rule 36 requires such a motion in order for the admissions not to be deemed admitted by operation of law. Without such a motion, the requests are deemed admitted on the thirty-first day by operation of law. Therefore, the circuit court in this case erred when it did not deem the requests admitted. Issue 2: Summary judgment From the deemed admissions in this case, Benet was an agent of Stribling, capable of binding her by his actions and representations. Because Stribling admitted to be the sole owner of Elite and to have sole control over the acts and contracts of Elite, Elite was an alter ego of Stribling. Stribling can thus be held liable for the contracts of Elite. Stribling also admitted that there was a contract. Stribling admitted that the work under the contract (the uneven slab and misaligned poles) was actually performed for far less money than she received from Montgomery. Stribling admitted to a breach of the contract, by admitting that what was actually constructed was not up to good workmanlike standards for construction. Therefore, Montgomery was entitled to be put in the position she would have occupied if there had been no breach. Summary judgment should therefore have been granted as to Montgomery’s breach-of-contract claim. However, summary judgment cannot be granted where the admissions did not establish all the elements of the claims. None of the admissions that Montgomery based her motion for summary judgment on contained any specific representations by either Stribling or Benet, and these admissions did not establish the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. Thus, the circuit court properly denied summary judgment on Montgomery’s fraudulent-misrepresentation claim. Issue 3: Damages At trial, Stribling claims that it was undisputed that the cost of putting Montgomery in the position as if no breach had occurred was $107,077.64. Montgomery also requested damages for emotional distress. For a damages award for mental anguish and emotional distress in a breach-of-contract action, a plaintiff must show that mental anguish was a foreseeable consequence of the breach of contract, and that he or she actually suffered mental anguish. Here, Montgomery only stated generalizations which were not sufficient to establish damages for emotional distress.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court