Henley Timber Co. v. Ponti


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-IA-01286-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-02-2008
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
Additional Case Information: Topic: Service of process - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - M.R.C.P. 6(b) - Statute of limitations
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Randolph, and Lamar, JJ.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-05-2007
Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court
Judge: Roger T. Clark
Disposition: The trial court denied defendants' summary judgment motion.
Case Number: 01-0484
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: HENLEY TIMBER COMPANY, CHARLES W. HENLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND d/b/a HENLEY TIMBER COMPANY




 KENNETH S. WOMACK



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: ROBERT JOSEPH PONTI, JR. WILLIAM MITCHELL CUNNINGHAM, JR.  
    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: Service of process - M.R.C.P. 4(h) - M.R.C.P. 6(b) - Statute of limitations
    Summary of the Facts: Robert Joseph Ponti, Jr., sued Charles W. Henley and Henley Timber Co. on the last day before the statute of limitations on his claim expired. Ponti’s service of process was defective. After Ponti moved for, and obtained, a default judgment, defendants moved to set it aside. Ponti moved for and obtained an order extending time for service of process. The order was approved by defendants. Ponti then served process within the time allowed by the order, and defendants responded with a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the statute of limitations barred the claim. The trial court denied defendants’ motion, and they appeal.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Although Ponti served process within the 120 days allotted under M.R.C.P. 4(h), he served defendants with an improper summons, and the 120-day period for service of process expired. However, M.R.C.P. 6(b) granted the trial court authority to extend the time for service of process, which it did, with the agreement of defendants’ counsel. Thus, defendants are barred from raising a statute-of-limitation defense.


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