Trustmark National Bank v. Meador
2012 Miss. LEXIS 119
| Miss. | 2012Background
- Meador sued MBHS, Trustmark, and others for multiple claims arising from alleged conspiracies to deprive him of his medical practice (2004 complaint; earlier related disputes dated to 1990s).
- Meador’s opposition relied on an affidavit based on statements from Brent Farris; Meador claimed a 2004 discovery of fraudulent activity during federal investigations.
- Trial court denied a motion to strike parts of Meador’s affidavit and denied summary judgment to Trustmark/MBHS; the matter proceeded to interlocutory appeal.
- Meador attached an allegedly authentic mutual-release/termination agreement with MBHS, but authenticity and scope were contested.
- This Court held the affidavit portions were inadmissible hearsay, reversed denial of the motions to strike, and reversed denial of summary judgment for Trustmark/MBHS; claims were ultimately time-barred.
- Kitchens, Dickinson, and others concurred; concurrence in result only addressed statute of limitations analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to strike parts of Meador’s affidavit | Meador’s affidavit contained personal knowledge; statements by Farris are admissible. | Meador’s affidavit relies on hearsay from a non-testifying witness; should be struck. | Yes; trial court abused discretion, portions struck. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given the statute of limitations and fraudulent concealment | Fraudulent concealment tolled the statute; due diligence shown by Meador. | No effective tolling; concealment not pled with specificity and due diligence not shown. | Yes; Meador’s claims barred; summary judgment for Trustmark/MBHS affirmed. |
| Whether fraudulent-concealment tolling could save the claims | There is evidence of concealment by Trustmark/MBHS; tolling applies. | Concealment not adequately proven; reliance on hearsay and prior knowledge. | No; concealment not proven; tolling not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. Catholic Diocese of Biloxi, 18 So.3d 814 (Miss. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for striking affidavits; summary judgment review guidance)
- Levens v. Campbell, 733 So.2d 753 (Miss. 1999) (affidavits admissible if based on personal knowledge and admissible facts)
- Walker By & Through Walker v. Skiwski, 529 So.2d 184 (Miss. 1988) (hearsay and affidavit standards on summary judgment)
- Sanderson Farms Inc. v. Ballard, 917 So.2d 783 (Miss. 2005) (elements of fraudulent concealment; tolling requirements)
- Andrus v. Ellis, 887 So.2d 175 (Miss. 2004) (due-diligence requirement in concealment tolling)
- Reich v. Jesco, Inc., 526 So.2d 550 (Miss. 1988) (fraudulent-concealment tolling standards)
- CitiFinancial Mortgage Co., Inc. v. Washington, 967 So.2d 16 (Miss. 2007) (accrual date for contractual claims; limitations applicability)
- Jones v. Fluor Daniel Servs. Corp., 32 So.3d 417 (Miss. 2010) (limitations accrual and discovery rules)
- Stephens v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of U.S., 850 So.2d 78 (Miss. 2003) (statutory limitations considerations)