250 So. 3d 486
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2005 the Johnsons contracted with Rhett Construction (Wythe Rhett) to renovate and build their home; they moved in November 2007 and later alleged defective work.
- The Johnsons filed suit (Rhett I) on August 26, 2010; Rhett asserted counterclaims on November 4, 2010, including individual intentional-tort claims against the Johnsons.
- The Johnsons filed responses/counterclaims on February 11, 2011, which they characterized as an amended complaint against Rhett individually.
- On August 14–15, 2012 the trial court dismissed Rhett in his individual capacity and dismissed the Johnsons’ counterclaims; the Johnsons filed a first amended complaint on August 30, 2012 without first obtaining leave, and it was later struck.
- The Johnsons then brought a separate suit (Rhett II) on September 12, 2013 asserting malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a claim under the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act arising from Rhett’s November 4, 2010 counterclaims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Rhett in Rhett II, holding the one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts had expired; the Johnsons appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Johnsons’ Feb. 11, 2011 counterclaim tolled the statute of limitations for intentional-tort claims | The Feb. 11 filing tolled limitations because it constituted an amended complaint asserting individual torts against Rhett | The counterclaims were dismissed Aug. 15, 2012; after dismissal the one-year period ran and expired before Rhett II was filed | Held: The Feb. 11 filing tolled while pending, but after dismissal on Aug. 15, 2012 the one-year period ran and Rhett II (filed Sept. 12, 2013) was time-barred for those claims |
| Whether the Aug. 30, 2012 amended complaint in Rhett I tolled the statute of limitations for malicious-prosecution | The amended complaint tolled limitations because filing an amended complaint pauses the statute | Rhett: the amended complaint was filed without leave as required by M.R.C.P. 15(a), was stricken, and therefore had no legal effect to toll the statute | Held: The amended complaint was improperly filed and struck; it did not toll the limitations period, so the malicious-prosecution claim (accrued Aug. 14, 2012) expired before Rhett II |
| Whether a motion to amend pending at the time tolls the statute | The Johnsons implied a pending motion to amend tolled the period | Rhett: a motion to amend does not toll until the court rules; an attached amended complaint is only effective if court grants leave | Held: Motion to amend does not toll the statute until granted; no tolling occurred from any ungranted motion |
| Whether the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act creates an independent cause of action | The Johnsons argued the Act provided a separate cause of action | Rhett argued the Act does not create an independent claim | Held: The Act does not create an independent cause of action; claim fails as a separate basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornhill v. Ingram, 178 So.3d 721 (Miss. 2015) (tolling rule: filing tolls statute until litigation ends)
- Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church v. Alfa Ins., 124 So.3d 643 (Miss. 2013) (same tolling principle)
- Curry v. Turner, 832 So.2d 508 (Miss. 2002) (motion to amend with attached complaint does not toll limitations if statute runs before court rules)
- Pioneer Cmty. Hosp. of Newton v. Roberts, 214 So.3d 259 (Miss. 2017) (noting overruling of aspects of prior decisions on other grounds)
- Lincoln Elec. Co. v. McLemore, 54 So.3d 833 (Miss. 2010) (properly filed complaint tolls statute)
- Price v. Clark, 21 So.3d 509 (Miss. 2009) (proper filing tolls limitations even if dismissal is required for presuit deficiencies)
- Koestler v. Mississippi Baptist Health Sys., 45 So.3d 280 (Miss. 2010) (voluntary dismissal does not toll statute)
- Wilner v. White, 929 So.2d 315 (Miss. 2006) (motion to amend does not toll limitations until ruled upon)
- Joiner Ins. Agency v. Principal Cas. Ins., 684 So.2d 1242 (Miss. 1996) (malicious-prosecution governed by one-year intentional-tort limitation)
- Trustmark Nat’l Bank v. Meador, 81 So.3d 1112 (Miss. 2012) (one-year limitation for intentional torts)
- City of Mound Bayou v. Johnson, 562 So.2d 1212 (Miss. 1990) (same)
- Rose v. Tullos, 994 So.2d 734 (Miss. 2008) (Litigation Accountability Act does not create independent cause of action)
Decision: Affirmed.