Beth Donaldson v. Dominic Ovella
228 So. 3d 820
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ovella contracted with B&C Construction (and its individual officers Beth, Colie, and Coby Donaldson) to build a house; disputes arose about column size/materials, alleged swaying, and unpaid final billing.
- Ovella sued B&C and the Donaldsons in federal court (2010); claims against the Donaldsons individually were dismissed; jury returned a take-nothing verdict for B&C; posttrial motions for Rule 11 and §1927 sanctions were denied on procedural grounds.
- The Donaldsons then sued Ovella in Harrison County Circuit Court (2012) for malicious prosecution, emotional distress, and attorney’s fees related to the federal suit.
- Ovella moved for summary judgment; the circuit court granted it, holding the Donaldsons’ claims barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and judicial estoppel and ruling no genuine issues of material fact on probable cause or malice.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed, holding the preclusion doctrines did not apply and that genuine issues of material fact existed as to probable cause and malice, remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Donaldsons) | Defendant's Argument (Ovella) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars malicious-prosecution claims | Prior federal denial of Rule 11/§1927 sanctions precludes relitigation; claims are same subject | Federal proceedings and sanctions motions resolved the issues; preclusion applies | Not barred: different causes of action and no final merits adjudication in federal court |
| Whether collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of probable cause/malice | Federal determinations resolved same issues | Federal rulings decided those factual issues | Not barred: probable cause/malice were not actually litigated or decided in federal case |
| Whether judicial estoppel prevents Donaldsons from asserting corporate-shield defense | No inconsistent positions; corporate-shield not waived | Donaldsons asserted individual counterclaims previously, so inconsistent | Not barred: positions consistent; corporate-shield not an affirmative, pleaded waiver or relied upon by prior court |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on probable cause and malice | Disputed testimony, lack of pre-suit investigation, and circumstantial evidence create jury issues | Denial of sanctions and survival of certain claims in federal court show probable cause | Reversed: genuine disputes exist on probable cause and malice; these are jury questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Williams, 186 So. 3d 836 (Miss. 2016) (res judicata and collateral estoppel framework)
- EMC Mortg. Corp. v. Carmichael, 17 So. 3d 1087 (Miss. 2009) (purpose of res judicata)
- Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., 891 So. 2d 224 (Miss. 2005) (scope of res judicata)
- Cohen v. Lupo, 927 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 adjudication does not preclude malicious-prosecution action)
- Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir. 1993) (denial of Rule 11 motion does not foreclose malicious-prosecution suit)
- In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1999) (limitations on Rule 11 creating substantive rights)
- Moon v. Condere Corp., 690 So. 2d 1191 (Miss. 1997) (probable cause as jury question when facts conflict)
- Junior Food Stores, Inc. v. Rice, 671 So. 2d 67 (Miss. 1996) (failure to investigate can undermine probable cause)
- Benjamin v. Hooper Elec. Supply Co., 568 So. 2d 1182 (Miss. 1990) (definition of malice for malicious-prosecution tort)