H & E Equipment Services, LLC v. Floyd, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01675-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2007 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Admission of invoices - M.R.E. 803(6) - JNOV - M.R.C.P. 50 - Attorney’s fees - Section 11-53-81 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., AND IRVING, J. Dissenting Author : CHANDLER AND ROBERTS, JJ. - W/O SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Barnes, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Chandler, Griffis, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-16-2005 Appealed from: SIMPSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: TRIAL COURT GRANTED MOTION FOR JNOV IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS Case Number: 2002-345 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | H & E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC, FORMERLY HEAD & ENGQUIST EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC |
GEORGE T. HOLMES
|
||
| Appellee: | THOMAS R. FLOYD AND THOMAS R. FLOYD, MASON CONTRACTORS, INC. | ROBERT M. FREY |
|
|
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 - Admission of invoices - M.R.E. 803(6) - JNOV - M.R.C.P. 50 - Attorney’s fees - Section 11-53-81 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Head & Engquist Equipment Services, LLC filed suit against Thomas R. Floyd and Thomas R. Floyd, Mason Contractors, Inc., claiming damages and attorney’s fees for failure to pay an open account or, in the alternative, breach of contract. Floyd filed a counterclaim requesting actual and punitive damages for breach of contract, bad faith, and fraud. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of H & E in the amount of $45,000, the circuit court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ordering that H & E take nothing and that its claims be dismissed with prejudice. The court subsequently entered a final judgment denying H & E’s motion for reconsideration, as well as Floyd’s motion for attorney’s fees. Both parties appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Admission of invoices H & E argues that the computer-generated invoices introduced during trial met the requirements for admission into evidence, pursuant to M.R.E. 803(6), also known as the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The testimony in the case did not prove that the computer-generated invoices were sufficiently trustworthy. Although a witness testified that he was the custodian of the records at the Jackson branch and that the invoices were generated in the ordinary course of H & E’s business, he gave no explanation as to how the documents were created. Moreover, H & E failed to show that the computer-generated invoices, many of which were reprints, were created at or near the time the charges were incurred. Therefore, the invoices failed to meet the requirements for admission under the Rule 803(6). H & E also argues that the court erred in excluding evidence previously admitted during trial when it considered whether to grant Floyd’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Although M.R.C.P. 50 is worded differently than the federal rule, both rules require that the court considering a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or judgment as a matter of law as it is called in federal court, to consider whether there is a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to support the verdict of the jury. Because inadmissible evidence cannot contribute to a legally sufficient evidentiary basis, the trial court did not err in removing erroneously admitted evidence when considering whether to grant Floyd’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Floyd argues that the court should have granted its motion for attorney’s fees because H & E’s complaint expressly invoked the Mississippi Open Account statute, section 11-53-81, which provides that if the person sued on the open account shall prevail in the suit, he shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Summary judgment was entered in favor of Floyd in a pretrial motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment as to the claim under the open account statute for attorney’s fees. Accordingly, attorney’s fees on an open account claim were no longer available to either party. The parties then proceeded with their claims based on contract. Therefore, the court did not err in refusing to award attorney’s fees to Floyd. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
