Tyler v. Automotive Finance Co.
113 So. 3d 1236
Miss.2013Background
- Automotive Finance sued Paul Tyler; trial court granted summary judgment due to unanswered admissions, and deemed those admissions admitted.
- Tyler claimed he was not properly served with the request for admissions or the summary judgment motions.
- Tyler moved to amend the admissions after final judgment; trial court denied; Tyler appealed both denial of amendment and Rule 60 relief.
- Tyler appeared through counsel at the hearing where the admissions were deemed admitted; he did not object to the admission.
- The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s decisions, holding no reversible error in the deemed admission and denial of Rule 60 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the trial court’s denial of the motion to amend admissions be reversed? | Tyler argues improper service and Rule 86(b) factors apply. | Automotive Finance contends Tyler conceded at hearing; amendment untimely. | No abuse of discretion; motion denied. |
| Do the admissions, by themselves, support the order granting summary judgment and final judgment? | Admissions establish actionable conduct; support summary judgment. | Disputed issues remained; but Tyler cites no authority. | Yes; admissions support summary judgment and final judgment. |
| Was service of the admissions and related motions proper? | Service on Tyler via his counsel of record satisfied due process; Crump’s appearance sufficed. | Asserted improper service to Griffin and other counsel; service issues raised. | Service proper; counsel’s appearance and continuance acknowledged pendency; no abuse. |
| Was Tyler's Rule 60(b) relief sought within a reasonable time? | Motion to amend filed within an acceptable period after final judgment. | Motion filed nearly four years after the hearing and after final judgment; prejudicial delay. | No; motion denied for failure to act within reasonable time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Briney v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 714 So.2d 962 (Miss. 1998) (reasonable time for Rule 60(b) relief depends on prejudice and reasons for delay)
- Accredited Sur. and Cas. Co., Inc. v. Bolles, 535 So.2d 56 (Miss. 1988) (Rule 60(b) relief requires exceptional circumstances)
- Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So.2d 219 (Miss. 1984) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60 motions)
- Gillett v. State, 56 So.3d 469 (Miss. 2010) (arguments must be supported with authority)
- Tupelo Redevelopment Agency v. Gray Corp., Inc., 972 So.2d 495 (Miss. 2007) (discusses admissibility and service in context of appeal)