Montgomery v. Stribling, 115 So. 3d 823

Montgomery sued Stribling and others for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment stemming from a construction project.
Montgomery served Rule 36 requests for admissions on Stribling, who did not timely respond and filed a late answer.
Montgomery moved for summary judgment and to deem admissions admitted; the circuit court denied both motions.
A bench trial occurred, culminating in a judgment in favor of Stribling against Montgomery.
The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in not deeming the admissions admitted and in granting judgment based on trial evidence.
This Court reverses and remands to enter judgment against Stribling with damages determined from trial evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by denying deeming admissions under Rule 36.	Montgomery contends admissions were deemed admitted by operation of law.	Stribling did not timely respond and did not move to withdraw or amend; court had discretion not to deem.	Error; admissions deemed admitted; remand for damages.
Whether deemed admissions support breach of contract and fraud claims.	Admitted facts establish contract, breach, and agency; summary judgment appropriate for breach.	Fraud claims require specific misrepresentations not contained in admissions.	Breach: summary judgment proper; Fraud: no basis from admissions.

Langley v. Miles, 956 So.2d 970 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (summary-judgment standard on admissions)
DeBlanc v. Stancil, 814 So.2d 796 (Miss. 2002) (admissions deemed established unless withdrawn or amended)
Boyd v. Boyd, 83 So.3d 409 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (strict enforcement of Rule 36; tardy responses; no withdrawal)
In re Dissolution of Marriage of Leverock and Hamby, 23 So.3d 424 (Miss. 2009) (no discretion to deem admitted where untimely response; need motion to withdraw)
Martin v. Simmons, 571 So.2d 254 (Miss. 1990) (withdrawal/amendment required to avoid admissions)