Williams v. Fornett
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-02143-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-10-2003 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Dale Harkey Disposition: DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE Case Number: CI-2002-224(3) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Charles E. Williams |
GEORGE S. SHADDOCK |
||
| Appellee: | Louis H. Fornett, Jr. | H. BENJAMIN MULLEN |
|
|
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: | Personal injury - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-49 |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Louis Fornett, Jr., lost control of his vehicle, his car struck Charles Williams, who was driving a rental vehicle. Williams filed a complaint naming "Lois H. Forn, Jr." as the sole defendant. The circuit court clerk issued a summons to "Louis H. Forn, Jr." Later, another summons was issued to "Louis H. Forn, Jr." Williams later filed an amended complaint naming "Louis H. Fornett, Jr." as the sole defendant. A summons was issued to Mr. Fornett, and Fornett was served with the summons and the amended complaint. Fornett filed a motion to dismiss. The court addressed the motion as one for summary judgment and dismissed Williams's case. Williams appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Williams argues that the statute of limitations was tolled by filing the amended complaint. The three-year statute of limitations under section 15-1-49 for the accident on July 11, 1999 would expire on July 11, 2002. Filing a complaint tolls the applicable statute of limitation for 120 days, but if the plaintiff fails to serve process on the defendant within that 120-day period, the statute of limitation automatically begins to run again after the expiration of the 120-day period. After Williams failed to serve his defendant within the proscribed 120 days, the remainder of the three year statute of limitations began to run. Williams did not request an extension of time to obtain service of process on the defendant, nor did he refile his suit. Thus, although tolled for the 120 days after the complaint was filed, the statute of limitations expired before the December 3 summons was issued and long before Williams filed his amended complaint in February 2003. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
