Andrew Lucas v. S. Evans, Jr.
695 F. App'x 807
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In January 2010 Lucas and Evans executed a settlement agreement resolving business disputes; Evans agreed to pay Lucas $556,500 plus interest in monthly installments (starting $10,000 and rising to $20,000) until paid in full.
- The agreement also required Evans to execute and deliver a promissory note, which he did not do.
- Lucas contends Evans made three $10,000 payments in early 2010; Evans disputes that and admits a $5,000 partial payment in February 2012. No further payments were made.
- Lucas complained to Evans about missed payments as early as April 2010. If paid on schedule, the final installment would have been due November 2012.
- Lucas sued for breach of contract on January 15, 2016. The district court granted summary judgment for Evans, holding the claim time-barred under Mississippi’s three-year statute of limitations; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual / continuing breach | Lucas: breach was continuing because Evans promised to pay “until … paid in full,” so limitations did not bar the claim | Evans: each installment accrues when due; statute of limitations ran on unpaid installments more than three years before suit | Court: Held accrual is per-installment when due; continuing-breach theory would improperly waive the statute and is barred by Mississippi law |
| Applicable limitations period (promissory note vs. contract) | Lucas: settlement functions as a promissory note, invoking a six-year limitations period | Evans: three-year contract limitations applies | Court: Not reached on merits — Lucas waived this argument by not raising it at summary judgment; appellate court declines to consider |
| Tolling / equitable estoppel | Lucas: tolling based on Evans’ failure to execute note and requests to delay suit (argued on appeal) | Evans: no tolling shown; statute ran | Court: Tolling/estoppel arguments were not raised below with sufficient specificity and thus are waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. KHOU-TV, 850 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Griffin v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 661 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard)
- Freeman v. Truitt, 119 So.2d 765 (Miss. 1960) (installment accrual rule: each installment’s limitations period begins when due)
- Kersey v. Fernald, 911 So.2d 994 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (application of installment accrual rule)
- Merchants & Marine Bank v. Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp., 801 F.2d 842 (5th Cir. 1986) (discussing continuing breach doctrine)
- First Trust Nat’l Ass’n v. First Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 220 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2000) (applying Mississippi three-year contract limitation)
- Diaz v. Kaplan Higher Educ., L.L.C., 820 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2016) (waiver of arguments not raised in district court)
- Vela v. City of Houston, 276 F.3d 659 (5th Cir. 2001) (abandonment of issues not pursued at summary judgment)