McCall v. Household Finance Corp., 122 So. 3d 832

McCall appeals a dismissal of his complaint against Household Finance Corporation (correct name Household Financial Corporation of Alabama referenced in filings).
Complaint, filed Nov. 11, 2011, described loan from Household Finance (1996) secured by mortgage on McCall’s home; claimed initial proceeds were $15,000 of a $32,000 loan with $17,000 available later; alleged it was a line of credit rather than a true loan.
Plaintiff asserted misrepresentations—that the loan would be paid off in ten years and that advances he did not receive were charged.
Exhibits included a Feb. 12, 2009 letter detailing loan history with cash advances and an Aug. 4, 2011 letter with further cash-advance details; McCall acknowledged one $2,000 cash advance in Aug. 1997.
Counts: (1) breach of contract with references to fraud; (2) fraud alleging misrepresentation about the loan terms and payoff; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress based on representation and call timing.
During proceedings, Household moved to dismiss (Dec. 13, 2011) asserting misnaming of defendant and time-bar issues; McCall sought to amend (Jan. 12, 2012) to correct party names; amendment was granted then rescinded; appeal followed the May 14, 2012 dismissal order.
Court applied Rule 12(b)(6) standard, considering attached exhibits; held the breach and fraud claims were time-barred; the emotional distress claim was inadequately pleaded and waived for lack of proper briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether breach of contract claim is time-barred	McCall argues contract not barred; timeliness disputed	Household asserts six-year contract statute of limitations and breach occurred in 1996	Breach claim time-barred on face of complaint
Whether fraud claim is time-barred	Fraud claim not timely if misrepresentation occurred recently	Misrepresentation alleged in 1996; time-bar applies	Fraud claim barred by two-year statute of limitations
Whether continuing or successive breach tolled limitations	McCall suggests continuing breach theory extends period	Theory not supported by alleged facts; not applicable here	Not viable; the complaint failed to allege a continuing-contract basis to toll the period
Whether IIED claim was properly pleaded or could be amended	Claim supported by alleged harassment and improper calls	No adequate factual basis pleaded; insufficient under law	Spoiled by lack of authority and insufficient pleading; waived for briefing deficiencies
Whether amendment of the complaint should have been allowed	Amendment would correct party description and keep claims intact	Amendment not clearly necessary or timely	Amendment harmless but unnecessary; dismissal affirmed on substantive grounds

Nance v. Matthews, 622 So.2d 297 (Ala. 1993) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review; dismissal not entitled to presumption of correctness)
Knox v. Western World Ins. Co., 893 So.2d 321 (Ala. 2004) (clarifies review on Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
Westwind Technologies, Inc. v. Jones, 925 So.2d 166 (Ala. 2005) (discusses standard of review for dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6))
AC, Inc. v. Baker, 622 So.2d 331 (Ala. 1993) (breach occurs when performance is due; accrual of contract damages)
Seybold v. Magnolia Land Co., 376 So.2d 1083 (Ala. 1979) (when breach occurs for contract performance; accrual rules)
Martin v. Hodges Chapel, LLC, 89 So.3d 756 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011) (authority cited on contract-related timing issues)
Ex parte Puccio, 923 So.2d 1069 (Ala. 2005) (discussing amendment vs. dismissal timing in pending motions)
Ex parte Bole, 103 So.3d 40 (Ala. 2012) (outrage/intentional-infliction standard discussion)