Donald Breeden v. Willie Faye Breeden Buchanan
164 So. 3d 1057
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Breeden and Buchanan divorced after executing a property-settlement agreement and quitclaim deed in July 2010 transferring Breeden’s interest in the marital home to Buchanan; Breeden alleges he signed under duress (threatened with a gun).
- Nationwide issued a homeowner’s policy effective May 27, 2010; the home was destroyed by fire April 24, 2011; Nationwide paid proceeds to lender and Buchanan and interpleaded the remainder.
- Breeden sued Buchanan and Nationwide in Marion County Circuit Court (Aug. 17, 2011) alleging assault, duress/inducement, emotional-distress claims, conversion/unjust enrichment, breach of contract, bad faith, and conspiracy.
- The circuit court granted motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied leave to amend, finding (1) intentional torts time-barred by the one-year statute, and (2) Breeden lacked an insurable interest so Nationwide owed him nothing; dismissal was with prejudice.
- On appeal the court reviewed Rule 12(b)(6) de novo and Rule 15(a)/denial-of-amendment for abuse of discretion, reversing in part (claims against Buchanan) and affirming in part (claims against Nationwide).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court properly dismissed claims against Buchanan under Rule 12(b)(6) | Breeden argued his intentional-tort claims may be tolled (disability/unsoundness of mind); sought leave to amend to add facts | Buchanan argued intentional-tort claims were time-barred, claims to set aside settlement belong in chancery, and Breeden lacked insurable interest | Court reversed dismissal of several claims against Buchanan, held negligent-infliction claim timely, intentional torts could be repleaded via permitted amendment; remanded for leave to amend |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was proper | Breeden: amendment would not be futile and would allege facts supporting tolling and torts | Buchanan: trial court presumed correct; amendment unnecessary or futile; jurisdiction/chancery issues | Court found abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend as to Buchanan and directed allowance of first amended complaint |
| Whether court improperly considered materials outside the pleadings (conversion to summary judgment) | Breeden: judge relied on full insurance policy and settlement documents attached to defendants’ motions; conversion without Rule 56 notice | Nationwide: documents were central to Breeden’s claim and were referenced/partly attached to the complaint; consideration proper | Court held consideration of complete policy and divorce documents was permissible because they were central and were the documents Breeden relied upon; no improper conversion |
| Whether claims against Nationwide were correctly dismissed (breach, bad faith, emotional distress, conspiracy) | Breeden argued lack of insurable-interest finding was wrong and emotional-distress/bad-faith claims survive | Nationwide argued Breeden had no insurable interest at time of loss and complaint failed to plead facts supporting emotional-distress or bad-faith claims against insurer | Court affirmed dismissal as to Nationwide: Breeden lacked insurable interest at time of loss and emotional-distress claims against Nationwide were not sufficiently pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ralph Walker, Inc. v. Gallagher, 926 So.2d 890 (Miss. 2006) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Rose v. Tullos, 994 So.2d 734 (Miss. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(6) tests legal sufficiency; allegations taken as true)
- Bayer Corp. v. State, 32 So.3d 496 (Miss. 2010) (limitations on considering matters outside complaint on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Jones v. Fluor Daniel Services Corp., 32 So.3d 417 (Miss. 2010) (intentional infliction of emotional distress carries one-year statute under §15-1-35)
- Norman v. Bucklew, 684 So.2d 1246 (Miss. 1996) (earlier rule on emotional-distress statute of limitations, later curtailed)
- Poindexter v. Southern United Fire Ins. Co., 838 So.2d 964 (Miss. 2003) (Rule 15(a) amendments following Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and futility considerations)
- Moeller v. American Guaranty & Liability Ins. Co., 812 So.2d 953 (Miss. 2002) (leave to amend should be freely given absent prejudice or futility)
- Sennett v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 757 So.2d 206 (Miss. 2000) (documents central to plaintiff’s claim may be considered on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 987 F.2d 429 (7th Cir. 1993) (defendant may introduce documents central to plaintiff’s claim on motion to dismiss)
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Ramsey, 719 F.Supp. 1337 (S.D. Miss. 1989) (insurable interest required at time of loss; lack of interest defeats recovery)