Meredith v. Meredith


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CP-00501-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-01-2008
Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contract - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Tolling of statute of limitations - Section 15-1-63 - Attorney’s fees - Section 11-55-5(1) - M.R.A.P. 38
Judge(s) Concurring: LEE, P.J., IRVING, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ
Non Participating Judge(s): KING, C.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-26-2007
Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court
Judge: Denise Owens
Disposition: CASE DISMISSED AND MOTION TO AMEND DENIED. SANCTIONS AWARDED.
Case Number: G2006-1294 O/3

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: H.L. MERIDETH, JR.




H.L. MERIDETH, JR. (PRO SE)



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: PHILIP T. MERIDETH, M.D. DONALD JAMES BLACKWOOD, ROBERT LOUIS GOZA, LINDSEY MCGEE TURK  

    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 - Amendment of complaint - M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) - M.R.C.P. 15(a) - Tolling of statute of limitations - Section 15-1-63 - Attorney’s fees - Section 11-55-5(1) - M.R.A.P. 38

    Summary of the Facts: Sonny Merideth filed suit to enforce a promissory noted signed by his son, Philip Merideth. Philip subsequently notified Sonny by letter that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations and warned him that if he failed to dismiss it, Philip would move for sanctions and attorneys’ fees. As a result of a litigious history between the father and son, Philip also asked the chancery court to enjoin Sonny from filing any more lawsuits without first obtaining leave of court to do so. Philip filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions and injunctive relief. Sonny filed a motion to amend the complaint to plead equitable estoppel and to assert the tolling of the statute of limitations due to Philip’s alleged absence from Mississippi for two years. The chancery court determined that Sonny’s motion to amend would be futile since the statute of limitations had already run. The chancery court also found that maintenance of the claim, after receiving notice that Philip planned to use the statute of limitations as a defense, was frivolous and without justification. At a later hearing, the chancery court granted Philip attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $8,298.09 in recognition of the frivolous nature of the suit, but the court declined to enjoin Sonny from filing any more lawsuits without first getting permission from the court. Sonny appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Amendment of complaint Sonny argues that the chancery court erred in denying his motion to amend the complaint based on the fact that amendment would still render the claim futile. He argues that the chancery court should have determined whether the pleadings themselves stated a claim for relief, and further, that the chancery court, using the M.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) standard, should not consider facts outside the pleadings. Under M.R.C.P. 15(a), a party may amend a pleading as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served, or, if a pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within thirty days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or upon written consent of the adverse party. Amendments should be freely allowed unless the proposed amendment would still render the claim futile. The chancery court in this case found that an amendment would still render Sonny’s claim futile under either theory he presented. Sonny argues that the statute of limitations may have been tolled under section 15-1-63, due to Philip’s alleged absence from the state for two years during the time the note was due. However, previous discovery had already established, by an affidavit from Philip, that he was present in Mississippi. Sonny additionally argues that the statute of limitations was tolled under the equitable estoppel doctrine because of the action or inaction by Philip. However, Sonny’s allegations amount to conclusory statements without sufficient support to justify estopping Philip from claiming the statute of limitations as a defense. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Sonny argues that the chancery court erred in finding his claim frivolous. Under section 11-55-5(1), a trial court’s imposition of sanctions will be considered proper if it finds that an attorney or party brought an action, or asserted any claim or defense, that is without substantial justification, or that the action, or any claim or defense asserted, was interposed for delay or harassment. To determine whether a claim is frivolous, a court must determine if it can be said that the pleader or movant has no hope of success. There was no abuse of discretion in the chancery court’s determination that the suit was frivolous and without substantial justification. Philip also asks that he be awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with this appeal. Damages can be awarded under M.R.A.P. 38 if the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous. The Court declines to find that Sonny had absolutely no hope of success on appeal in this case.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court