Rankin v. Clements Cadillac, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01687-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01687-SCT ; 2003-CT-01687-SCT ; 2003-CA-01687-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Settlement - Defense of release - M.R.C.P. 8(c) - M.R.C.P. 15(b) - Conversion to summary judgment - M.R.C.P. 12(c) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Irving, J. Dissent Joined By : Bridges, P.J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-26-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. Swan Yerger Disposition: DISMISSED Case Number: 251-01-000280 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jerald Rankin |
SANFORD E. KNOTT |
||
| Appellee: | Clements Cadillac, Inc. | CASSANDRA S. WALTER |
|
|
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: | Settlement - Defense of release - M.R.C.P. 8(c) - M.R.C.P. 15(b) - Conversion to summary judgment - M.R.C.P. 12(c) |
| Summary of the Facts: | While employed by Clements Cadillac, Inc., Jerald Rankin was terminated. Both Rankin and his manager, Greg Broadhead, claimed that the other assaulted him at the dealership. The two filed criminal affidavits against each other. According to an affidavit from Broadhead's attorney, Christopher Klotz, both parties and their attorneys agreed to settle their dispute by seeking the dismissal of the simple assault charges they had filed against each other and agreed to relinquish all civil claims either had against the other or against Clements Cadillac. Broadhead signed a release, but the affidavit asserts that Rankin refused to do so. Rankin filed suit against Clements Cadillac for wrongful discharge. Clements Cadillac filed a motion to enforce a prior settlement. The court granted the motion and dismissed Rankin's suit. Rankin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Clements Cadillac argues that Rankin and Broadhead agreed to a release of each other and of Clements. Clements Cadillac acknowledges that its answer to the complaint did not raise the defense of release. About ten months after its answer was filed, Clements Cadillac filed a motion to dismiss based on the settlement. Rankin's response raised the absence of an affirmative pleading on release. M.R.C.P. 8(c) provides that answers to complaints shall set forth affirmatively a variety of defenses, including that of release. It does not state what is to occur if such an affirmative pleading is not made and the issue is raised later. Under M.R.C.P. 15(b), if issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. There is no prohibition in Rule 15(b) of applying the trial-by-consent principle to affirmative defenses. Even if there is no consent, the judge should allow an amendment to pleadings when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice the maintaining of the action or defense upon the merits. A defendant's pretrial motion that seeks a ruling on an affirmative defense which has not been included in the pleadings should be evaluated under the same rule (Rule 15(b)) as would apply if that defense was raised at trial. Therefore, Rule 8(c) was no bar to the judge's consideration of the release. In this case, the parties agree that this settlement never became an executed written contract. For an enforceable settlement to exist, there must have been a meeting of the minds. There were two affidavits submitted in this case, the Klotz affidavit and Rankin’s affidavit. Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 12(c), the parties' presentation and the judge's consideration of the two affidavits transformed this motion into one for summary judgment. The Klotz affidavit submitted for Clements Cadillac was never disputed. Rankin did not dispute any of the statements in the Klotz affidavit in the affidavit that he executed a month later. Therefore, the judge did not err in granting Clements Cadillac’s motion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
