Johnson v. Parker Tractor & Implement Co.
132 So. 3d 1032
Miss.2014Background
- This is a Mississippi direct appeal from a circuit-court dismissal of a garnishment action as time-barred under a seven-year judgment period.
- The underlying dispute concerns a 1994 defective combine purchased from Parker Tractor & Implement Co., Inc.
- The original judgment in favor of Johnson was entered in 1994 and enrolled in 1998, with the mandate issued in 2002 after Parker Tractor’s appeal.
- State II involved Deere intervening in a county-court garnishment action and challenging enforceability of the Johnson judgment.
- Johnson filed a circuit-court garnishment in October 2009, but the circuit court held the action time-barred after tolling during the direct appeal in State I.
- The issue presented is whether tolling events and related stays extended the life of Johnson’s judgment sufficiently to permit the garnishment action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the seven-year limitations period run on the Johnson judgment? | Johnson argues tolling during stays extended the period. | Parker Tractor argues the period expired and cannot be extended. | Yes, the period ran; action time-barred. |
| Did stays in State II and Federal I toll the statute of limitations? | Johnson contends stays tolled the period by 668 days. | Parker Tractor contends stays did not toll the circuit judgment. | No tolling occurred; stays did not extend the limitations period. |
| Is Parker Tractor estopped from asserting the statute-of-limitations defense? | Johnson suggests estoppel due to Deere's position in related actions. | Parker Tractor did not benefit from an inconsistent position; estoppel does not apply. | Estoppel does not apply; defense is permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker Tractor & Implement Co. v. Johnson, 819 So.2d 1234 (Miss.2002), 819 So.2d 1234 (Miss. 2002) (State I; enforceability of the judgment and related timetables discussed)
- Parker Tractor & Implement Co. v. Johnson, 12 So.3d 516 (Miss.2009), 12 So.3d 516 (Miss. 2009) (State II; garnishment proceedings and enforceability background)
- Trustmark Nat’l Bank v. Pike County Nat’l Bank, 716 So.2d 618 (Miss.1998), 716 So.2d 618 (Miss. 1998) (Automatic stay in bankruptcy context discussed for comparison)
- Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Biglane, 427 So.2d 945 (Miss.1983), 427 So.2d 945 (Miss. 1983) (Garnishment life tied to main judgment; cessation of main judgment ends garnishment)
- Grace v. Pierce, 127 Miss. 831, 90 So. 590 (1922), 90 So. 590 (Miss. 1922) (Garnishment purpose; life of judgment ends when main judgment extinguished)