Clark v. Neese

• Decision Date: 20 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2012–CA–00653–SCT.,2012–CA–00653–SCT.
• Citation: 131 So.3d 556
• Parties: Kathryn Schroeder CLARK, with Power of Attorney for Helen Schroeder v. Lisa Younger NEESE, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry L. Schroeder, Deceased.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

131 So.3d 556

Kathryn Schroeder CLARK, with Power of Attorney for Helen Schroeder

v.Lisa Younger NEESE, Administratrix of the Estate of Harry L. Schroeder, Deceased.

No. 2012–CA–00653–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 12, 2013.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 2014.

Dunbar Dowdy Watt, Wayne Dowdy, Magnolia, attorneys for appellant.

Norma Carr Ruff, Dan W. Webb, Tupelo, attorneys for appellee.

Before DICKINSON, P.J., PIERCE and COLEMAN, JJ.

DICKINSON, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. Helen Schroeder was a passenger in an automobile being driven by her husband, Harry Schroeder, when a log truck collided with the rear of the automobile, killing Harry and severely injuring Helen, who, since the accident, has substantially diminished mental capacity. In a federal lawsuit, Helen—both individually and as one of Harry's wrongful-death beneficiaries—claimed the truck driver was at fault and denied that Harry was negligent. After the federal judge denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, Helen settled the federal suit. Helen then sued Harry's estate in state court, claiming Harry was partially at fault. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the estate based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel. But, because the federal judge stated his denial of summary judgment was based on his finding of genuine issues of material fact as to the truck driver's negligence, not “Harry Schroeder's potential contributory negligence,” we reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. A log truck driven by Royce Sullivan collided with the rear of an automobile driven by Harry Schroeder, who had just pulled his car onto a highway in Lowndes County. Harry died as a result of the accident, and his wife, Helen—who was a passenger in her husband's car—suffered severe injuries, permanent disability, and diminished mental capacity.

¶ 3. Helen—both individually, and as one of Harry's wrongful-death beneficiaries—sued Sullivan in federal court, alleging that Sullivan's negligence had caused Harry's death and her permanent disability. In requests for admission, Sullivan asked Helen to admit that Harry's negligence had caused the accident. Helen denied negligence on the part of her husband and stated that, but for Sullivan's negligence, Harry safely could have entered the highway.

¶ 4. Sullivan moved for summary judgment at the close of discovery, arguing that the uncontradicted evidence established Harry's negligence as the sole cause of the accident. In denying summary judgment, the federal judge stated that the evidence created a jury question as to Sullivan's fault, and that “plaintiffs do not appear to dispute Harry Schroeder's potential contributory negligence.” The parties settled and agreed to a release of claims, and the district court dismissed the case.

¶ 5. Then, Kathryn Schroeder, with power of attorney for and on behalf of Helen Schroeder, filed suit against the Estate of Harry Schroeder in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, alleging that Harry negligently had failed to yield the right of way and had pulled in front of Sullivan's log truck at an extremely slow rate of speed, causing the accident which resulted in Helen's permanent disability.

¶ 6. The estate moved for summary judgment, arguing that Helen had pleaded facts in her complaint materially different from those she had asserted in the federal district court. The estate claimed that Helen's circuit-court complaint directly contradicted her responses to the requests for admission in federal court, and that the trial court should grant summary judgment based on the doctrines of judicial and equitable estoppel. The estate further argued that the settlement and release of claims in federal court barred the circuit-court action under the doctrines of accord and satisfaction, release, and merger.

¶ 7. Helen responded that judicial and equitable estoppel could not bar the present action because the parties were not adverse in the prior action and because any change in her theory of the case resulted from information she had learned during discovery in the federal-court case. Helen explained that she had instituted the federal action under the belief that Sullivan was solely at fault, but she had learned of her husband's contributory negligence during discovery. Helen further argued that the settlement and release pertained only to claims against Sullivan, not her husband's estate.

¶ 8. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the estate, finding that Helen was judicially estopped from bringing her claim that Harry had caused the accident. Although the trial court found that Helen had discovered her husband's potential fault during discovery, the court determined that Helen consciously had decided not to join the estate at that juncture to avoid losing diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, her inconsistencies were not inadvertent. The trial court did not reach the merits of the estate's arguments as to equitable estoppel, accord and satisfaction, release, and merger.

¶ 9. Helen appealed, arguing that judicial estoppel cannot apply because the parties were not adverse in the original proceeding and because her present claim is not inconsistent with her position in federal court. She also claims that the trial court should not have considered the denied requests for admission when applying judicial estoppel.

ANALYSIS

I. The trial court did not err by considering the denied federal requests for admission while applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

¶ 10. Helen argues that the trial court erred by considering Sullivan's requests for admission and her responses thereto when determining whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel should bar the present case. We disagree.

¶ 11. The only authority Helen cites in support of her argument is Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 36(b), which states in its relevant part:

Any admission made by a party under this rule is for the purpose of the pending action only and is not an admission by him for any other purpose nor may it be used against him in any other proceeding.¹

But the appellant's reliance on Rule 36 is misplaced. First, Rule 36(b) addresses “[a]ny admission made by a party under this rule.” ² Sullivan propounded these requests for admission during discovery in federal court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36,³ which is substantially similar to, but not the same as, the Mississippi state-court rule. The appellant's reliance on a Mississippi rule is simply misplaced.

¶ 12. Also, the rule addresses the use of admissions by a party.⁴ Helen admitted nothing. She denied the relevant requests. Neither the federal rule nor the state rule addresses denials to requests for admission.

¶ 13. Finally, even if Rule 36 were relevant, it would defy logic for this Court to hold that a court cannot consider responses to requests for admission when determining whether judicial estoppel bars a subsequent claim. In applying the doctrine, this Court has considered positions taken by various means, including allegations in a complaint,⁵ witness testimony, ⁶ and failure to disclose a claim in bankruptcy.⁷

¶ 14. Our purpose is not to bind the party to a certain position, but to bar the pursuit of a second, inconsistent claim.⁸ So, considering responses to requests for admission in a prior action does not use the response as “an admission by him for any other purpose” or “against him in any other proceeding,” ⁹ because the responses serve only to determine whether the party took an inconsistent prior position. Accordingly, we hold the trial judge did not err by considering Helen's responses to Sullivan's federal-court requests for admission.

II. The trial judge applied the correct test for judicial estoppel.

¶ 15. The doctrine of “[j]udicial estoppel is designed to protect the judicial system and applies where ‘intentional self-contradiction is being used as a means of obtaining unfair advantage in a forum provided for suitors seeking justice.’ ” ¹⁰ Judicial estoppel arises when one party asserts a position contrary to one taken in prior litigation.¹¹ “Judicial estoppel precludes a party from asserting a position, benefitting from that position, and then, when it becomes more convenient or profitable, retreating from that position later in the litigation.” ¹²

¶ 16. In Kirk v. Pope, this Court held that there are three elements of judicial estoppel.¹³ A party will be judicially estopped from taking a subsequent position if (1) the position is inconsistent with one previously taken during litigation, (2) a court accepted the previous position, and (3) the party did not inadvertently take the inconsistent positions. ¹⁴ In Kirk, this Court found that judicial estoppel barred a litigant from recovering on a claim in circuit court which the litigant failed to disclose in a federal bankruptcy proceeding.¹⁵ Here, the trial judge relied on Kirk in finding that judicial estoppel barred Helen's claim against the estate.

¶ 17. Helen argues that the test articulated by this Court in Kirk and relied on by the trial judge is an incomplete statement of the elements of judicial estoppel under Mississippi law. Specifically, Helen argues that the parties in the present case must have been adverse in the prior case in order for the doctrine to apply; and because she was not adverse to the estate in federal court, she argues that the doctrine should not bar her claim against the estate, even if it is inconsistent with her prior positions.

¶ 18. In several cases, this Court has stated that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is “based on expedition of litigation between the same parties” ¹⁶ and “will be applied in civil cases where there is multiple litigation between the same parties.” ¹⁷ In Thomas v. Bailey, this Court explicitly stated that the doctrine of judicial estoppel “is inapplicable unless the parties were adverse in the original proceedings.” ¹⁸ As recently as 2002, this Court relied on that language from Thomas...