Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church v. Alfa Ins. Corp.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-01807-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01807-COA ; 2010-CA-01807-COA ; 2010-CT-01807-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-31-2013 Opinion Author: Coleman, J. Holding: Court of Appeals affirmed; Circuit court reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - M.R.C.P. 59(e) motion - Tolling the statute of limitations - M.R.C.P. 60(b) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-24-2010 Appealed from: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: The trial court entered an order of dismissal based on Sweet Valley's failure to cooperate. Sweet Valley filed a motion to set aside judgment, or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion and dismissed Sweet Valley's second claim. Case Number: 2010-0042P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church a/k/a Hub Community Baptist |
MARC L. FRISCHHERTZ, DAVID LEE BREWER |
||
| Appellee: | Alfa Insurance Corporation a/k/a Alfa General Insurance Corporation a/k/a Alfa Mutual General Insurance Company a/k/a Alfa Specialty Insurance Corporation | TOBY JUSTIN GAMMILL, WHITNEY WARNER GLADDEN, JACOB O. MALATESTA |
|
|
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: | Insurance - M.R.C.P. 59(e) motion - Tolling the statute of limitations - M.R.C.P. 60(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church filed a complaint against its insurance carrier, Alfa Insurance Corporation. The court entered an order of dismissal after Sweet Valley failed to cooperate in discovery. Sweet Valley filed a motion to set aside judgment, or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial. The court denied the motion, and Sweet Valley filed a second complaint against Alfa that same day. The court dismissed the complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. Sweet Valley appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue in this case, whether the “Motion to Set Aside Judgment or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial” filed by Sweet Valley tolled the statute of limitations on the underlying contract claim, is one of first impression in Mississippi. M.R.C.P. 59(e) motions stay the finality of judgments as well as the thirty-day time period to appeal. In contrast, motions filed under M.R.C.P. 60(b) for relief from a judgment do not toll the time for appeal or the enforceability of a judgment. Rule 59(e) motions provide the court with the opportunity to correct its own error, while Rule 60(b) motions proceed on the assumption that the trial court has entered a valid and enforceable judgment which has become final. Logically, it stands to reason that if a Rule 59 motion tolls the period for appeals and the enforceability of a judgment, it also should toll the statute of limitations of the underlying claim. If this is not the rule, plaintiffs who file Rule 59 motions risk being left with no remedy if their motion is denied and the statute of limitations has run. Because the statute of limitations was tolled until the trial court denied Sweet Valley’s Rule 59(e) motion, the filing of the second complaint on the same day was timely. The three-year statute of limitations applicable to contract claims began on October 14, 2005, when Alfa paid Sweet Valley $9,951.89, which Sweet Valley alleges did not fully satisfy its claim. When Sweet Valley filed its complaint on August 29, 2008, with forty-six days remaining under the statute, the statute of limitations was tolled until the case was dismissed on June 29, 2010. The statute of limitations continued to be tolled by the Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment until that motion was denied by the trial court on January 29, 2010. Sweet Valley filed its second complaint with the trial court on the same day its Rule 59 motion was denied. Accordingly, the second complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
