Hickman v. Citibank
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-02034-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-29-2012 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed as modified |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Open account - Failure to respond to discovery requests - Requests for admission - M.R.C.P. 36(a) - Attorney's fees - Section 11-53-81 - Reasonableness of fees Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Carlton, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-02-2010 Appealed from: Marshall County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF AP PE L L E E Case Number: CV2009-000377 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jonathan Hickman |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. | JOHN S. SIMPSON MICHELE C. ARNOLD | ||
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: | Open account - Failure to respond to discovery requests - Requests for admission - M.R.C.P. 36(a) - Attorney's fees - Section 11-53-81 - Reasonableness of fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. filed a complaint against Jonathan Hickman, seeking recovery of a delinquent credit card debt totaling $2,299.20. Citibank also sought post-judgment interest at a rate of 8%, attorney’s fees of $766.40, and all court costs. Citibank later filed a motion for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motion, awarding Citibank the principal amount of $2,299.20; plus post-judgment interest at a rate of 8% per year; and all court costs. The circuit court also awarded $2,000 in attorney’s fees, which exceeded the amount requested in Citibank’s complaint. Hickman appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Discovery requests Hickman argues that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Citibank based on his failure to respond to discovery requests. Specifically, Hickman argues that the circuit court’s continuation of the case meant that he did not have to respond to the discovery requests until after Citibank filed its amended complaint. Citibank amended its complaint for the sole purpose of correcting a party-name error in the complaint’s prayer for relief. The doctrine of misnomer allows parties to correct party-name errors if doing so would not result in prejudice. It is undisputed that the style of the complaint correctly identified Hickman as the defendant. Additionally, Citibank’s statement of account, which was attached as an exhibit to the complaint, lists Hickman as the account holder. Finally, the summons issued correctly identified Hickman as the defendant, and Hickman appeared in court to defend his case. The style of the complaint, the exhibits, and the summons all correctly identified Hickman as the defendant and were sufficient to notify him that he was being sued by Citibank. Because Hickman failed to respond to Citibank’s requests for admissions, the circuit court deemed the subject requests admitted under M.R.C.P. 36(a). Matters admitted are conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admissions. Hickman never filed a motion to withdraw or amend the admissions. Consequently, Hickman admitted that he had applied for a credit card with Citibank, made charges on the account, and failed to pay the outstanding balance of $2,299.20. Based on Hickman’s deemed admissions, no genuine issues of material facts remained, and the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Citibank. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Hickman argues that the circuit court erred in awarding attorney’s fees of $2,000, which exceeds the amount requested in Citibank’s complaint. Section 11-53-81 provides for attorney’s fees in suits to collect an open account provided that certain requirements are met. Citibank submitted a demand letter to Hickman that fulfilled the requirements set forth in section 11-53-81, and the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Citibank. Therefore, Citibank was entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. Citibank’s attorney submitted an affidavit averring that $766.40 was a reasonable fee commensurate with the amount of work associated with a debt-collection case and similar to fees charged by other attorneys doing the same type of work. However, the circuit court determined that $2,000 was a reasonable fee based on the fact that Citibank’s attorney was required to travel from Jackson, Mississippi, to Marshall County and Union County during the pendency of the case. The Supreme Court has established a rebuttable presumption that an award of one-third of the amount of the indebtedness in collection matters is reasonable. Here, Citibank recovered $2,299,20, and it sought attorney’s fees of $766.40, which is one-third of the recovered amount. There is no basis for the increased award where the attorney’s fees that Citibank originally requested were presumptively reasonable, and there was no effort to rebut that presumption. Thus, the amount of attorney’s fees awarded is reduced to $766.40. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
