Covington County Bank v. Magee
177 So. 3d 826
| Miss. | 2015Background
- Magee sued Covington County Bank (CCB) for conversion after CCB seized two trucks and a trailer via a replevin writ (Dec. 2008) and later sold the property at auction (Oct–Dec. 2012).
- The circuit court initially granted replevin to CCB; Magee successfully moved to set aside that order based on insufficient service, and the matter was remanded to justice court for further proceedings.
- Magee pursued damages via a writ of inquiry in circuit court; the circuit court first ruled for Magee but then vacated that judgment; the Court of Appeals affirmed that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction in 2012.
- Magee filed the conversion suit on August 30, 2013; CCB moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) asserting (1) statute of limitations, (2) contractual right under the promissory note, and (3) issue preclusion based on the Court of Appeals opinion.
- The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. On appeal the Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding the complaint’s face did not establish that dismissal was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conversion claim is time‑barred under the 3‑year statute of limitations | Magee argued conversion may have occurred after Labor Day 2010 or on sale date Oct/Dec 2012, so claim filed Aug 2013 is timely | CCB argued claim accrued earlier (at latest June 2009 when replevin was set aside), so suit is time‑barred | Court: On face of complaint, accrual date is disputed; cannot dismiss on statute of limitations at 12(b)(6) stage |
| Whether CCB had a contractual right to property under the promissory note | Magee: complaint does not concede CCB’s contractual right; facts disputed | CCB: attached promissory note to show contractual entitlement to collateral | Court: Promissory note not part of the complaint; consideration of the note would convert motion to summary judgment—no notice given—so dismissal improper |
| Whether issue preclusion bars conversion claim based on Court of Appeals decision | Magee: Court of Appeals did not decide merits of right to property; left open conversion remedy | CCB: Court of Appeals indicated promissory note gave CCB rights, so collateral estoppel applies | Court: Statement was nonessential (in a footnote and part of a response to dissent); issue preclusion does not apply |
| Whether sanctions (attorney fees/costs) were warranted for frivolous suit | Magee: claim not frivolous given unresolved factual/legal issues | CCB: requested fees because claim allegedly barred and frivolous | Court: Because dismissal was improper, sanctions need not be addressed and were denied by lower court |
Key Cases Cited
- Magee v. Covington Cnty. Bank, 119 So.3d 1053 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (prior appellate decision addressing jurisdictional defects and noting conversion remedy may remain)
- City of Belmont v. Mississippi State Tax Comm’n, 860 So.2d 289 (Miss. 2003) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) motions and pleadings construed as true)
- Bayer Corp. v. (unrelated party), 32 So.3d 496 (Miss. 2010) (on converting a 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment and required procedural safeguards)
- Anderson v. LaVere, 136 So.3d 404 (Miss. 2014) (construction of accrual and discovery rules under Miss. Code § 15-1-49)
- Greenline Equipment Co., Inc. v. Covington Cty. Bank, 873 So.2d 950 (Miss. 2002) (definitions and elements of conversion)
- Johnson v. White, 21 Miss. 584 (Miss. 1850) (historical statement on accrual of trover/conversion causes of action)