Bolton v. Equiprime, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01744-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-27-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - M.R.C.P. 56 - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Opportunity to respond Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-04-2005 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: GRANTED APPELLEE’S 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS Case Number: 251-03-887-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | ROSEMARY BOLTON AND CLEMMIE BOLTON,
MARVIA N. BOLTON AND BYRON BOLTON,
JAMES BROOKS AND GENEVA BROOKS, PEGGY
L. BROWN, THOMAS BRUCE AND CAWANDRA
BRUCE, RUBY N. BUTLER, SYLVIA J. COLLINS,
VINCENT K. CROSS AND SHERLIE E. CROSS,
CHARLES R. DAVIS AND RAYMONDA C. DAVIS,
ANTHONY DOBSON AND TRINA DOBSON, REX
EVERETT AND CASSANDRA EVERETT, K.C.
GATES, KAREN STOUT CARNELL HARDEN AND
JERRY B. HARDEN, VICKIE S. JONES AND LEO F.
JONES, JR., HAROLD MINCY AND MARGUERITE
MINCY, INEZ MCCULLUM, ESTELLA MORGAN
AND JAMES MORGAN, MICHAEL S. NETTO AND
SALENA L. NETTO, VIVIAN J. NICHOLS,
ESSERLENA G. PICKENS, RICHARD DALE
PIERCE AND TINA PIERCE, RITA REYNOLDS
AND JAMES MITCHELL REYNOLDS, BENNY L.
SPANN AND PAMELA J. SPANN, CHARLES
SUTTON AND EVELYN SUTTON, AND ROBERT J.
THOMAS AND MARTHA S. THOMAS |
R. CHARLES ROBB |
||
| Appellee: | EQUIPRIME, INC. | KENNETH B. RECTOR |
|
|
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 - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - M.R.C.P. 56 - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Opportunity to respond |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rosemary Bolton and several other mortgagors filed an action against Equiprime, Inc., an Alabama corporation. Equiprime filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment which the court granted. Bolton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) authorizes a trial judge to dismiss a complaint for its failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In considering a dismissal for the failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the trial judge is limited to a perusal of the complaint and should grant the motion only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any set of facts in support of his claim. If matters outside the pleadings are presented and accepted by the court during consideration of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment and disposed of pursuant to the dictates of M.R.C.P. 56. When this occurs, all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56. If matters outside the pleadings are not presented, and if the motion is granted, leave to amend shall be granted in accordance with M.R.C.P. 15(a). In this case, the pleadings consist of an amended complaint and an answer. The court’s findings, in some respects, went well beyond the pleadings. For example, nothing in either the mortgagors’ amended complaint or Equiprime’s answer contained any facts from which the court could determine the applicability of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. However, the “Motion of Equiprime to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment” contains facts and information relied upon by the court in reaching its decision that the doctrines are applicable. This action by the trial court had the effect of treating Equiprime’s motion as a motion for summary judgment. If the trial court had considered only the complaint and then granted Equiprime’s motion to dismiss, the court would have been required to allow the mortgagors an opportunity to amend their complaint. The mortgagors argue that the trial court erred in not allowing them to do so. The problem with this argument is that the trial court made certain findings which were not restricted to an analysis of the allegations in the mortgagors’ amended complaint. Therefore, the mortgagors were not entitled to amend but were entitled to a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations made by Equiprime. Although the court never formally granted the mortgagors an extension of time, the record shows that the mortgagors had adequate time to respond to the matters raised by Equiprime and failed to do so. Based on the allegations contained in Equiprime’s motion and the mortgagors’ lack of response, Equiprime is entitled to summary judgment, because Equiprime’s motion alleges facts, coupled with an affidavit, which clearly shows the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, even though the trial court erroneously granted judgment on the motion to dismiss, no reversible error occurred because Equiprime was entitled to summary judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
