Rankin v. American Gen. Fin., Inc


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-02615-SCT
Oral Argument: 01-25-2005
 

 

* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users).


Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-03-2005
Opinion Author: Waller, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Breach of fiduciary duties & Fraudulent misrepresentation - Judicial estoppel
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley and Carlson, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Graves, J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Dickinson, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: Fraud

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-19-2003
Appealed from: Jefferson County Circuit Court
Judge: Lamar Pickard
Disposition: The circuit court denied Plaintiffs’ motion and reiterated its holding that the statute of limitations had expired, and 5 summary judgment was therefore proper as to all claims.
Case Number: 99-0048

Note: Nature of Case: claims against American General for damages resulting from an alleged fraudulent lending scheme;

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: SHARON RANKIN, CAROLYN BANKS AND LAURA JOHNSON




RICHARD ARTHUR FREESE STEPHANIE M. DAUGHDRILL TIM K. GOSS



 

Appellee: AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. E. BARNEY ROBINSON, III CHARLES E. GRIFFIN LEE DAVIS THAMES DAN K. WEBB  

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: Breach of fiduciary duties & Fraudulent misrepresentation - Judicial estoppel

Summary of the Facts: Sharon Rankin, Carolyn Banks, and Laura Johnson filed a complaint against American General Finance, Inc. for damages resulting from an alleged fraudulent lending scheme. Their claims included breach of fiduciary duties, breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent misrepresentation and/or omission, negligent misrepresentation and/or omission, civil conspiracy, negligence, and unconscionability. American General subsequently removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on the basis that plaintiffs’ claims required construction of the federal Truth in Lending Act. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court disclaiming any reliance on the federal act. The district court granted the motion to remand. American General then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the statute of limitations barred all of the claims. The court granted the motion. Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, arguing the court failed to address the material facts relating to their usury claim. The court denied the motion, and plaintiffs appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The doctrine of judicial estoppel is applicable where there is multiple litigation between the same parties and one party knowingly asserts a position inconsistent with the position in the prior litigation. A plaintiff with a choice between federal and state law claims may elect to proceed in state court on the exclusive basis of state law, thus defeating the defendant’s opportunity to remove, but taking the risk that his federal claims will one day be precluded. Here, the plaintiffs successfully, unequivocally, and repeatedly asserted to the federal district court and American General they had no intention of relying on the Truth in Lending Act and that their claims did not require any analysis of federal law. However, on remand, the plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment, maintaining the trial judge erred in failing to address a previously unmentioned TILA-reliant usury claim. On appeal, they argue that the mere fact that Mississippi’s usury laws use a term (‘finance charge’) that is covered by a federal disclosure requirement does not convert plaintiffs’ state law claim into federal ones. But in asking the Court to construe Mississippi’s usury statute in accordance with TILA, plaintiffs have contradicted the statements they made to the federal district court. Therefore, their arguments are barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel.


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