Welch Roofing & Construction, Inc. v. Farina
2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 639
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Welch filed a 2007 complaint to enforce a construction lien against Joann and Joseph for roof work on Joann's property; alleged an August 2006 contract with $68,000 base plus additional work and a total claimed amount of $71,415 plus interest and penalties.
- Welch alleged ongoing work under the contract with payment disputes, late fees, an NSF check, and a lien already recorded.
- An amended complaint filed August 18, 2008 added Railroad Investments LP as a defendant and claimed Joann conveyed the property to Railroad Investments in November 2006.
- Process was served on Joann and Joseph in 2007; service on Railroad Investments occurred after multiple delays, leading to procedural motions to dismiss.
- The circuit court dismissed the case in 2011 for failure to timely serve Railroad Investments, and Welch appeals the dismissal decisions as to all defendants.
- The appellate court affirm in part (lien-enforcement dismissal) and reverse in part and remand (breach-of-contract claims against Joann and Joseph) for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for lack of timely service as to Railroad Investments was proper | Welch argues good cause existed for service delay and breach relates back | Railroad Investments/Johann/Joseph contend service failed under Rule 4(h) | Dismissal affirmed for Railroad Investments; good-cause standard applied |
| Whether breach-of-contract claims against Joann and Joseph were properly dismissed | Original complaint named Joann and Joseph; timely service made | Original complaint misnamed party; amended complaint too late; no relation back | Reversed and remanded; breach claims against Joann and Joseph reinstated |
| Whether the amended complaint related back to the original under Rule 15(c) | Second amended complaint should relate back to original | Not timely served; relation back not satisfied | Relation back not established for Railroad Investments; claims time-barred |
| Whether the lien-enforcement claims were properly dismissed | Lien claims properly directed at proper party as real party in interest | Original complaint failed to name Railroad Investments as real party in interest | Affirmed as to lien-enforcement dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Stutts v. Miller, 37 So.3d 1 (Miss. 2010) (good cause required for delay in service under Rule 4(h))
- Holmes v. Coast Transit Auth., 815 So.2d 1183 (Miss. 2002) (excusable neglect standard for good cause)
- Sneed v. Ford Motor Co., 735 So.2d 306 (Miss. 1999) (definition of real party in interest)
- Beacon Syracuse Assocs. v. City of Syracuse, 560 F.Supp. 188 (N.D.N.Y. 1983) (illustrates broad pleading requirements)