Jordan v. BancorpSouth Bank
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-01920-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-11-2007 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Promissory note - Statute of limitations - Section 75-3-118(a) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-11-2006 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR PLAINTIFF, BANCORPSOUTH Case Number: CV05-152(A)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | KIRBY JORDAN |
KIRBY JORDAN (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | BANCORPSOUTH BANK F/K/A BANK OF MISSISSIPPI | BO RUSSELL |
|
|
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 - Promissory note - Statute of limitations - Section 75-3-118(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | On April 15, 2005, BancorpSouth Bank filed suit against Kirby Jordan to recover funds due under a promissory note. The note was signed by Jordan and dated September 7, 1999. Jordan moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the expiration of the statute of limitations. Jordan alleged that the applicable statute of limitations was section 15-1-49, which provides a three-year limitations period for all actions for which no limitations period is prescribed. BancorpSouth argued that the action was timely because the applicable limitations period was six years as prescribed by section 75-3-118(a). The county court held that section 75-3-118(a) applied to the action to collect under the promissory note and entered summary judgment for BancorpSouth in the amount of $3,387.78 with eight percent interest after October 25, 1999, attorney's fees in the amount of $1,133.33, and court costs. Jordan appealed to the circuit court which affirmed. Jordan appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jordan argues that section 75-3-118(a) is inapplicable to BancorpSouth's action to enforce the promissory note, because the promissory note was an instrument, not a "note payable." Section 75-3-118(a) provides that “an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time must be commenced within six (6) years after the due date or dates stated in the note or, if a due date is accelerated, within six (6) years after the accelerated due date.” Section 75-3-118(a) is applicable to a promissory note that is payable at a definite time and is otherwise subject to Title 75, Chapter 3. It was undisputed in this case that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument and, therefore, was subject to Title 75, Chapter 3. Because a promise is a note under the Title 75, Chapter 3, the reference in section 75-3-118(a) to "a note payable at a definite time" is to a promise payable at a definite time, in other words, a promissory note. Thus, section 75-3-118(a) contained the applicable statute of limitations of six years. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
