Hutzel v. City of Jackson
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-02134-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 01-11-2010 | |
* 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: 05-06-2010 Opinion Author: Kitchens, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligence - Waiver of affirmative defenses - M.R.C.P. 8(c) - Amendment of answer - M.R.C.P. 15(a) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-21-2008 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: William F. Coleman Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that Hutzel had released the City from any and all claims arising from the High Street project, and that the consideration paid for the release was an accord and satisfaction of such claims. Case Number: 251-03-00196-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Homer Hutzel |
STEVEN PRICE NIXON, SEAN A. MILNER |
||
| Appellee: | City of Jackson, Mississippi | JAMES RICHARD DAVIS, JR., LARA E. GILL |
|
|
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: | Negligence - Waiver of affirmative defenses - M.R.C.P. 8(c) - Amendment of answer - M.R.C.P. 15(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Homer Hutzel filed suit for damages against the City of Jackson and Hemphill Construction Company alleging inverse condemnation, negligence, trespass, and nuisance arising out of the City of Jackson’s efforts to improve the High Street corridor. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. Hutzel appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hutzel argues that, according to M.R.C.P. 8(c), the City waived its right to assert the affirmative defenses of release and accord and satisfaction when it failed to plead them in its initial answer and waited more than two years to assert these defenses. Rule 8(c) specifically requires that, in pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively certain listed defenses, including accord and satisfaction and release. Generally, this means if a party fails to raise an affirmative defense in its original answer, the defense will be deemed waived. Ordinarily, delay coupled with active participation in a lawsuit serves to waive affirmative defenses that otherwise would terminate the action. Absent a reasonable explanation, failure to plead an affirmative defense according to Rule 8(c) will result in a waiver of that defense. In this case, the City of Jackson filed its initial answer on February 11, 2003, in which it raised several affirmative defenses, including lack of jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, contributory negligence, and an allegation that the statute of limitations had run. Yet the City did not raise the affirmative defenses of release and accord and satisfaction until approximately twenty-six months later, on April 1, 2005. As for active participation, it is not evident from the record that the City of Jackson engaged in extensive pretrial practice. Nonetheless, the record reveals that both parties did participate in discovery by filing interrogatories and requests for production of documents beginning in November 2003. In addition, the trial court docket indicates that a notice of deposition was filed in December 2003; however, nothing in the record shows which party filed the notice or identifies the intended deponent. Nevertheless, the City’s filing of its initial answer on February 11, 2003, coupled with its participation in the discovery process commencing as early as November 2003, sufficiently establish that the City actively participated in the litigation. The record shows no unusual or extreme circumstances that explain the City’s failure to assert the affirmative defenses in a timely manner. The only argument presented by the City is that the affirmative defenses did not become apparent until well into discovery; however, this contention is not persuasive, as the City actually drafted the quitclaim deed, the foundation of its affirmative defenses, and had received it from Hutzel well before the commencement of this action. Because the City actively participated in the litigation and has no reasonable explanation for its twenty-six month delay in raising the affirmative defenses, the City has waived its right to assert release and accord and satisfaction. The City argues, however, that pursuant to M.R.C.P. 15(a), the trial court properly allowed it to amend its answer to include its affirmative defenses. Rule 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or upon written consent of the adverse party, and that leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. However, when reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a party’s request to amend pleadings pursuant to Rule 15 over an objection grounded in Rule 8(c), the Court will give full effect to the mandatory language of Rule 8(c). Thus, the trial judge abused his discretion in allowing the City to amend its answer. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
