Franklin v. BSL, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00907-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-00907-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Collection of debt - Modification of payment schedule - M.R.C.P. 62(b) - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - Lawyer-client relationship - Timeliness of brief - M.R.A.P. 31 - M.R.A.P. 26(a) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2007 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Lisa P. Dodson Disposition: DECISION OF THE COUNTY COURT WAS AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART. Case Number: A2401-2006-00392 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | THOMAS L. FRANKLIN |
THOMAS L. FRANKLIN (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | BSL, INC. D/B/A CASINO MAGIC BAY ST. LOUIS | NICHOLAS VAN WISER |
|
|
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: | Collection of debt - Modification of payment schedule - M.R.C.P. 62(b) - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - Lawyer-client relationship - Timeliness of brief - M.R.A.P. 31 - M.R.A.P. 26(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | BSL, Inc., Casino Magic Bay St. Louis, sued Thomas Franklin in the County Court of Harrison County for the collection of four checks, also known as markers, Franklin wrote to BSL totaling $30,000. BSL also claimed that Franklin owed $7,500 in attorney’s fees, under the terms of the BSL credit agreement. Franklin, proceeding pro se, answered this complaint and filed a counterclaim. Subsequently, Walter Teel, an attorney, stood in for Franklin at a hearing. Teel negotiated a settlement with BSL, and this settlement was dictated into the record before the county court. BSL’s attorneys drafted a settlement agreement. Teel signed the agreement, on behalf of Franklin. The county court entered this agreed judgment in the amount of $37,500 plus interest at a rate of eight percent per annum. The agreement provided that Franklin could pay BSL the lesser amount of $10,000 if he paid $5,000 by November 15, 2004, and then $1,000 on December 15, January 15, February 15, March 15, and April 15. The agreement provided that Franklin would be in default if he missed any of these payment dates, and he would then owe the full amount due. Franklin never made any of the scheduled payments. Instead, he filed for relief from judgment on the same day the judgment was entered. Franklin challenged the language of the order saying that the order should read that all claims against him are dismissed with prejudice but never challenged the payment schedule or the amount owed. The county court judge was not satisfied with the amended judgments submitted by the parties and entered his own amended judgment. Subsequently, BSL filed a petition for declaratory relief to determine if the amended judgment would follow the original judgment’s payment schedule. The county court entered an order that withdrew the amended agreement, reinstated the original agreement, and found that Franklin owed $37,500 plus interest because he did not make any of the scheduled payments. On appeal to the circuit court, the circuit court judge reversed and rendered in part and affirmed in part the county court order. The circuit judge found that the agreed order was a valid judgment, and BSL could execute on the judgment for the amount of $37,500 plus interest because Franklin had not made any of the scheduled payments. Franklin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Franklin argues that the county court erred by not modifying the payment schedule after it altered the language of the settlement agreement. Franklin did not ask, by way of his motion, the court to stay execution of the judgment under M.R.C.P. 62(b). Instead, Franklin filed a motion for relief from judgment under M.R.C.P. 60(b). Under Rule 62(b), it was within the county court’s discretion to stay the execution of the judgment. However, Franklin did not ask for this relief. Since the payment schedule in the original agreed order was agreed upon and valid, the county court was not in error for not granting Franklin the relief requested. Franklin also argues that the county court erred when it did not require that he sign the agreed judgment instead of Teel. A relationship of client and lawyer arises when a person manifests to a lawyer the person’s intent that the lawyer provide legal services for the person and the lawyer manifests to the person consent to do so. Thus, Teel was acting as Franklin’s attorney when he signed the settlement agreement due to the fact that Franklin asked Teel to settle the matter, and Teel consented. Since Franklin does not allege any fraud on the part of BSL or Teel and there is no evidence in the record that BSL knew that the entry of the settlement agreement, as written, was against the express instructions or wishes of Franklin, Franklin is bound by the settlement agreement even though he did not sign it. Franklin argues that the circuit court erred when it did not strike BSL’s brief as being untimely filed. BSL filed a motion for an extension of time within the thirty-day time limit prescribed by M.R.A.P. 31. Furthermore, the circuit judge consented to a further extension when she granted BSL a twenty-day extension. The circuit court granted BSL an extension through March 6, 2007, because March 5, 2007, was a Sunday. This was proper under M.R.A.P. 26(a). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
