Noble House, Inc., et al. v. W & W Plumbing
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-02060-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-31-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Rule 60(b) motion - Attempt to relitigate case - M.R.C.P. 22 interpleader action - Stop notice action - Section 85-7-181 - Mechanic’s lien - Section 85-7-131 - Section 85-7-141 - Section 85-7-181 - Statute of limitations Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, J. Procedural History: Motion to Amend Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-28-2002 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT DENIED |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Noble House, Inc. and Francis J. Ransom d/b/a Ransom Construction Company |
BRUCE M. KUEHNLE
STEVEN H. SMITH |
||
| Appellee: | W & W Plumbing & Heating, Inc. | TIM DAVID BLALOCK |
|
|
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 - Rule 60(b) motion - Attempt to relitigate case - M.R.C.P. 22 interpleader action - Stop notice action - Section 85-7-181 - Mechanic’s lien - Section 85-7-131 - Section 85-7-141 - Section 85-7-181 - Statute of limitations |
| Summary of the Facts: | The circuit court denied a motion by Noble House, Inc. and Francis J. Ransom, d/b/a Ransom Construction Company, Inc., to alter or amend a judgment entered on October 4, 2002. Noble House and Ransom had devised an “agreed judgment of dismissal” which, without notice, unilaterally precluded the subcontractor, W & W Plumbing & Heating, Inc., from sharing in funds interpled with the court pursuant to M.R.C.P. 22. The court entered the agreed judgment of dismissal, after amending it to provide for payment of funds to Noble House and Ransom after first paying the sum of $25,105.27 to W & W Plumbing and Heating, Inc. Noble House and Ransom filed their motion to alter or amend the agreed judgment arguing that W & W Plumbing was not entitled to the funds originally interpled on its behalf. After a hearing, the judge entered an order on October 28, 2002, finding that the October 4, 2002 agreed judgment of dismissal should stand, as amended by the judge, and denying the motion to alter or amend. Noble House and Ransom appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Rule 60(b) motion Noble House and Ransom argue that because the subcontractor had failed to make a valid claim to the funds by filing a counterclaim against Noble House or a cross-claim against Ransom or by timely filing a stop notice pursuant to section 85-7-181 and had no contractual relationship with Noble House, it was precluded from recovery. Although the motion was filed by Noble House and Ransom pursuant to M.R.C.P. 59 and 60, it must be treated as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion because it was not filed within ten days of the final judgment as required by Rule 59. This case was initiated by Noble House as an interpleader action pursuant to M.R.C.P. 22. Throughout six years of litigation, W & W Plumbing remained as a defendant solely for purposes of the interpleader funds, the total amount of which was never paid into the court by Noble House. Neither the contract issues between Noble House and Ransom nor the interpleader action were ever pursued to the extent of resolution. Rule 60(b) motions should be denied where they are merely an attempt to relitigate the case. Given the peculiar twists and turns this case took over six years, the agreement between Noble House and Ransom, without notice to W & W Plumbing, together with the Rule 60(b)(6) motion challenging the circuit judge’s amendment of the “agreed judgment of dismissal,” may well be construed as an attempt to relitigate the case. Therefore, the judge did not abuse his discretion in amending the agreed order to provide the relief originally intended for W & W Plumbing or in denying the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. Issue 2: Rule 22 interpleader action An M.R.C.P. 22 interpleader action may be used to protect the claimants by bringing them together in one action and reaching an equitable division of a limited fund. In order for the subcontractors to assert a valid claim to this fund they must do more than show that they are owed money by the contractor. They must demonstrate how they are entitled to a portion of this particular fund. W & W Plumbing was brought into this litigation by Noble House, which specifically interpled into court funds admittedly owed to the subcontractor. Noble House’s filing of this interpleader action sufficiently demonstrated that it was willing to pay whomever the court determined had a valid claim to the interpled funds. From the pleadings, it is evident that both Noble House and Random knew and acknowledged that W & W Plumbing had not been paid for the work it had completed on the Noble House project, and that the subcontractor was owed $25,105.27. Since the initial pleadings clearly defined the issues, further pleadings were unnecessary. Thus, entitlement to funds placed in escrow pursuant to a Rule 22 interpleader action may be determined on the basis of the pleadings or any other outside evidence introduced. Issue 3: Stop notice action Noble House and Ransom argue that W & W Plumbing is not entitled to share in the interpleader funds because it did not timely file a “stop notice” with Noble House pursuant to section 85-7-181. Filing a “stop notice” with the owner is a pre-requisite to pursuing the subcontractor’s statutory remedy outlined in the statute. Once a subcontractor who has not received payment for his work by a contractor provides the property owner with written notice, he is entitled to payment from the owner up to the amount the owner is indebted to the general contractor as of the date the notice is served. Having failed to file a stop notice with Noble House after the drafts still owing were not paid by Ransom, W & W Plumbing stands only as a general creditor of Ransom, the contractor, with no right of recovery directly against Noble House, the owner. The circuit judge correctly found that W & W Plumbing’s only relief lay with the funds ostensibly interpled on its behalf. Issue 4: Mechanic’s lien Noble House and Ransom argue that W & W Plumbing should have asserted its claim by filing mechanic’s lien pursuant to section 85-7-131 and by pursuing an action pursuant to section 85-7-141. Section 85-7-131 allows only architects, engineers, surveyors, laborers, and materialmen and/or contractors to secure a lien against the owner's property for services rendered and improvements constructed. The remedy does not extend to subcontractors who must pursue a separate remedy under section 85-7-181. W & W Plumbing held itself out as a subcontractor and thus, was not entitled to the remedy provided to contractors pursuant to sections 85-7-131 and 85-7-141. Issue 5: Statute of limitations Noble House and Ransom argue that because the statutes of limitations have run on the remedies W & W Plumbing might have pursued, it is not entitled to share in the interpleader funds. However, pursuing statutory remedies is not a prerequisite to a Rule 22 interpleader action. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
