Carter v. Reddix
115 So. 3d 851
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Carter filed March 29, 2010 a complaint against Reddix Medical Group and Dr. Reddix alleging tortious interference with a marriage contract based on an extramarital relationship with his wife Harriet.
- The circuit court dismissed three claims: tortious interference with a marriage contract (nonexistent in Mississippi), alienation of affection (insufficient Rule 8(a) pleading), and reckless infliction of emotional distress (treated as IIED and barred by the one-year statute).
- Appellees moved for judgment on the pleadings on December 19, 2011; Carter responded on October 5, 2011.
- The circuit court held Mississippi does not recognize tortious interference with a marriage contract, that alienation of affection was pleaded but time-barred, and that the reckless infliction claim should be treated as IIED and dismissed under the one-year statute.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of all three claims; alienation of affection was plead but ultimately time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations, while IIED was time-barred by a one-year statute, and the tortious-interference claim was not recognized in Mississippi law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Mississippi recognize tortious interference with a marriage contract? | Carter argues there is a viable tort in Mississippi. | Reddix contends no such cause of action exists. | No; court affirms dismissal for lack of recognized cause of action. |
| Was Carter's alienation-of-affection claim properly pleaded under Rule 8(a)? | Carter contends notice pleading suffices to state the claim. | Appellees argue pleading failed to support the claim. | Pleadings sufficient under Rule 8(a), but claim time-barred. |
| Is Carter's emotional-distress claim barred by statute of limitations? | Claim is to be treated as NIED or timely IIED. | Claim is properly IIED and time-barred by one-year limit. | Claim treated as IIED and barred by one-year statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cenac v. Murry, 609 So.2d 1257 (Miss. 1992) (elements of tortious interference with a contract; no recognized marriage-contract claim in Mississippi)
- Scott v. City of Goodman, 997 So.2d 270 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (notice pleading standard requires sufficient facts to support elements)
- Powell v. Clay Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 924 So.2d 523 (Miss.2006) (Rule 8 pleading; fair notice standard)
- Knight v. Woodfield, 50 So.3d 995 (Miss.2011) (elements of alienation of affection; three-element test)
- Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So.2d 1012 (Miss.2007) (alienation of affection as recognized tort; purpose and redress)
- J.R. ex rel. R.R. v. Malley, 62 So.3d 902 (Miss.2011) (IIED elements and standards for applicability)
- Trustmark Nat’l Bank v. Meador, 81 So.3d 1112 (Miss.2012) (statutory limitations for intentional tort claims; one-year IIED statute)
- Jones v. Fluor Daniel Servs. Corp., 32 So.3d 417 (Miss.2010) (statute-of-limitations and accrual principles applying to tort claims)