Morgan v. Stevens
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00872-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-19-2008 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Statute of limitations - Section 75-3-118(b) - Section 15-1-29 - Section 15-1-49 - Negotiable instrument - Section 75-3-104 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-10-2007 Appealed from: Clay County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE STEVENSES. Case Number: 2005-0014 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IRVIN MORGAN, JR. |
WILLIAM PAUL STARKS |
|
|
| Appellee: | HARRY STEVENS, JR. AND GAYLE J. STEVENS | JIM WAIDE, LUANNE STARK THOMPSON, RON L. WOODRUFF | ||
| Appellee #2: | ||||
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 - Statute of limitations - Section 75-3-118(b) - Section 15-1-29 - Section 15-1-49 - Negotiable instrument - Section 75-3-104 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Irvin Morgan, Jr. filed an action against Harry Stevens, Jr. and Gayle Stevens, seeking the collection of several delinquent loans. The court held the action was barred by the statute of limitations and granted summary judgment to the Stevenses. Morgan appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Morgan argues that the dishonor of a written demand note is governed by section 75-3-118(b), the Uniform Commercial Code, which provides a six-year statute of limitations, and not by section 15-1-29, covering open accounts and unwritten contracts, or section 15-1-49, the general statute of limitations, both of which provide for a three-year period of limitations. Chapter 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, of which section 75-3-118(b) is a part, applies only to negotiable instruments. Section 75-3-104 provides that an instrument is negotiable if it: (1) contains an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount, (2) is payable to the bearer or to order, (3) is payable at a definite time or on demand, and (4) contains no other undertaking or instruction. The recap statements prepared by Morgan do not satisfy the definition of a negotiable instrument. First, there was no written document that contained an unconditional promise by the Stevenses to pay Morgan. Second, with the exception of the checks written by Morgan to either Gayle or Lincoln Furniture Company, none of the documents that Morgan alleges to comprise a written demand note contain the words “payable to bearer” or “payable to order.” Thus, his claims were not covered under the six-year statute of limitations pursuant to section 75-3-118(b). The action to collect on these delinquent loans was filed in January 2005. The action to collect on these delinquent loans was filed approximately three years and ten months from the date of default. The claims are therefore time barred by the three-year statute of limitations. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
