Trustmark Nat'l Bank, et al. v. Meador


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-IA-01939-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-08-2012
Opinion Author: Chandler, J.
Holding: Reversed and Rendered
Additional Case Information: Topic: Breach of fiduciary duties - Affidavit - M.R.C.P. 56(e) - Personal knowledge - M.R.E. 801(c) - Fraudulent concealment - Section 15-1-35 - Section 15-1-49(1) - M.R.C.P. 9(b) - Release agreement
Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph and King, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Waller, C.J., and Pierce, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Kitchens, J., Concurs in Result Only With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Lamar, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-23-2009
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: Winston Kidd
Disposition: Denied motion to strike and motion for summary judgment.
Case Number: 251-04-1065CIV
  Consolidated: 2009-IA-01940-SCT Mississippi Baptist Health Systems, Inc., C. Gerald Cotton, Lu Harding, Charles Harrison, Eric A. McVey, III, M.D., Kurt Metzner, James P. Wigley, Trustmark National Bank, Frank Hart and Alvis Hunt v. C. Brent Meador, M.D.; Hinds Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 251-04-1065CIV; Ruling Date: 11/23/2009; Ruling Judge: Winston Kidd
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Trustmark National Bank, Frank Hart and Alvis Hunt




 BRIAN C. SMITH WILLIAM F. RAY REX MORRIS SHANNON, III D. COLLIER GRAHAM JEREMY LUKE BIRDSALL



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
    		•
    Appellee: C. Brent Meador, M.D. MICHAEL S. ALLRED  
    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 - Affidavit - M.R.C.P. 56(e) - Personal knowledge - M.R.E. 801(c) - Fraudulent concealment - Section 15-1-35 - Section 15-1-49(1) - M.R.C.P. 9(b) - Release agreement
    Summary of the Facts: On August 31, 2004, Dr. Carroll B. Meador filed a complaint against Mississippi Baptist Health Systems, Inc., Trustmark National Bank, and Doe Defendants 1 through 10, for breach of fiduciary duties, interference with fiduciary duties, interference with contract rights, interference with prospective business advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, deceit, fraud, and retaliatory discharge. On December 30, 2004, Meador filed an Amended Complaint, adding as defendants Central Medical Management, Inc.; Jackson Medical Clinic, Inc.; Jackson Medical Clinic, P.A.; Jackson Medical Clinic, LLC; Premier Medical Management of Mississippi, Inc.; James C. Bethea; William A. Causey, M.D.; C. Gerald Cotton; Lu H. Harding; Charles Harrison; Frank Hart; Alvis Hunt; Eric A. McVey, III, M.D.; Kurt W. Metzner; M. Kent Strum; James F. Wigley; and Doe Defendants 1 through 40; and adding as causes of action conspiracy, gross negligence, state-law antitrust claims, tort arising out of contract, and breach of covenants of good faith and fair dealing. On February 3, 2005, Defendants Alvis Hunt and Frank Hart filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In an order filed March 9, 2007, the district court granted remand of the case, finding the federal bankruptcy proceedings in the case had been concluded and only state claims remained. On January 3, 2008, Trustmark, Hunt, and Hart filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. MBHS filed a motion for summary judgment on February 15, 2008. On August 20, 2008, Meador filed a memorandum in opposition to summary judgment, along with an affidavit of Meador. On December 19, 2008, MBHS filed a motion to strike portions of Meador’s affidavit. In a hearing on February 19, 2009, the trial court judge denied the motion to strike. On July 2, 2009, the court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ petition for interlocutory appeal.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Affidavit The trial court abused its discretion in denying Trustmark’s and MBHS’ motions to strike parts of Meador’s affidavit. In response to Trustmark’s and MBHS’ motions for summary judgment, Meador relied solely upon his own affidavit to support his theories of fraud and fraudulent concealment. Meador’s only evidence to support his claim for fraudulent concealment is based on what he learned from former MBHS consultant Brent Farris. These statements are hearsay, not personal knowledge. Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 56(e), supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge. Portions of affidavits that contain inadmissable testimony or allegations that are not based on personal knowledge must be struck and cannot be considered part of the summary judgment record. Although there are some exceptions to M.R.E. 801(c), the hearsay rule, this hearsay does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions. Issue 2: Fraudulent concealment These statements in Meador’s affidavit are the only evidence supporting Meador’s fraudulent-concealment claim and should be excluded based on hearsay. Without these statements, Meador has no valid claims against Trustmark or MBHS. Therefore, the trial court erred in its denial of summary judgment in favor of Trustmark and MBHS. Meador’s claims arise from the same series of promissory notes he executed with Trustmark in the late 1990s. Therefore, all of Meador’s claims are time-barred by the one-year and three-year statute of limitations of sections 15-1-35 and 15-1-49(1). In his attempt to toll the statute of limitations, Meador claims that Trustmark and MBHS fraudulently concealed the causes of action listed in his complaint. Fraudulent concealment must be pled with specificity and particularity under M.R.C.P. 9(b). Meador did not plead any claim with particularity. Issue 3: Release agreement Meador attempts to use the release agreement that he signed with MBHS as evidence of fraud. Specifically, Meador claims that he did not sign the portions of the Mutual Release and Termination Agreement that discussed the prohibition of future claims against MBHS. This issue is without merit because the release agreement is irrelevant if Meador cannot provide evidence of fraudulent concealment.


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