Citifinancial, Inc., et al. v. Moody, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-IA-02382-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-03-2005 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-28-2003 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: trial court denied the motion to sever and transfer venue. Case Number: 2002-294-CV9 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Citifinancial, Inc., et al. |
MARCUS DOUGLAS EVANS
ROBERT D. GHOLSON
DANIEL D. WALLACE
JOHN R. CHILES
RICHARD CARLTON KELLER
REID S. MANLEY
ROBERT FRANKLIN SPRINGFIELD
KERMIT LAGUIN KENDRICK
ELIZABETH ERIN BOSQUET |
||
| Appellee: | Yvonne Moody, et al. | PERRY MICHAEL YANCEY ROBERT GORDON METHVIN, JR. JAMES MICHAEL TERRELL EUGENE M. HARLOW NORMAN GENE HORTMAN, JR. CHRISTOPHER BRIAN McDANIEL |
|
|
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: | Insurance - Joinder - M.R.C.P. 20 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sixty-one plaintiffs filed suit against Commercial Credit Corporation, Commercial Credit of Mississippi, Inc., and Citifinancial, Inc., formerly known as Commercial Credit and Commercial Credit of Mississippi Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and CitiFinancial Credit Company. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were charged for credit life, credit disability and credit property insurance by defendants. Fifty-six plaintiffs were severed into an arbitration group by agreement of the parties, leaving only five plaintiffs. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to sever and transfer venue. The court denied the motion to sever and transfer venue. The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part an interlocutory order to stay the proceedings pending a review of the circuit court’s decision to deny defendants’ motion to sever and transfer venue. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Of the five remaining plaintiffs in the lawsuit, none are residents of Jones County where the suit was filed. However, one of the plaintiffs did obtain a loan in Jones County. The defendants are not domestic corporations and are not domiciled in Jones County. Between the five remaining plaintiffs, eight loan transactions occurred in four different branches of defendants’ offices in different counties in Mississippi. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants are procedurally barred, because they allegedly failed to argue that the application of M.R.C.P. 20 required a finding of misjoinder. The argument presented to the trial court focused on joinder being an unconstitutional encroachment on statutory venue rights and that the trial court has discretion and should sever mass joinder claims. The motion requested that the trial court sever and transfer venue based upon M.R.C.P. 20 and 21. Therefore, the defendants raised the issue of misjoinder in the written motion to sever and transfer venue, and it is properly preserved for appeal. The interlocutory appeal is denied as to one of the plaintiffs, because he completed loans transactions in Jones County, thus making Jones County a proper venue for his lawsuit. The defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ cases should not be joined because the loan transactions are not part of the same transaction or series of transactions, and the claims involve no common questions of fact and only limited common questions of law. The defendants claim that each transaction occurred at a different time and location and that the only common fact that each plaintiff purchased credit insurance was not enough to satisfy the same transaction requirement of M.R.C.P. 20. The plaintiffs argue that the complaint set out the same claims, the same pattern of conduct, the same type of credit insurance products on the same type of personal loans, the only difference is the dollar amount charged on the premium payments. The record shows that each plaintiff took out a loan on a different day and a different time from one another. These loans had varying interest rates. The loan transactions also occurred in various branches and locations. The loan officers were different in each case. None of the plaintiffs went to a doctor for any ailment in connection with the loan transactions, but each complained of different problems. Based on the differing nature of each plaintiff’s case, they failed to meet M.R.C.P. 20 same transaction and occurrence test. Therefore, the case is reversed and remanded for severance. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
