Estate of Puckett v. Clement
| Decision Date | 05 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2016-IA-00636-SCT,2016-IA-00636-SCT |
| Parties | ESTATE OF RUSSELL PUCKETT v. CAROL CLEMENT |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ESTATE OF RUSSELL PUCKETT
v.
CAROL CLEMENT
NO. 2016-IA-00636-SCT
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
October 5, 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/21/2016
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK, JR.
TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: DAVID M. SESSUMS EUGENE A. PERRIER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KENNETH B. RECTOR
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: DAVID M. SESSUMS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND RENDERED - 10/05/2017
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC.
CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This interlocutory appeal arises from a 2010 civil suit filed in the Circuit Court of Warren County (the "trial court") by Carol Clement against Russell Puckett. After Puckett's death in 2014, Clement substituted the Estate of Russell Puckett (the "Estate") as the defendant in the suit and served the Estate. The Estate moved to dismiss the suit due to failure to timely serve process under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h). The Estate argued that the statute of limitations had expired before Clement perfected service. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The Estate now appeals the trial court's denial of the
Page 2
motion to dismiss.1 Because the trial court erred when it denied the motion to dismiss, we reverse and render judgment in favor of the Estate.
¶2. In her complaint, Clement maintained that Puckett had told her she could have the two planters on his front porch when he either passed away or closed the antique store where he also lived. According to Clement, she had purchased antiques from Puckett in the past, and she claimed that by September 2009 there had been no activity at Puckett's residence for some months. She also asserted that she had heard from the neighbors that Puckett had passed away. Further, Clement alleged that she had knocked on Puckett's door and rung his doorbell on a number of occasions and had not received any response.
¶3. Therefore, on the evening of September 11, 2009,2 Clement, with the assistance of her daughter, removed one of Puckett's planters from his porch and began to carry it toward her nearby home. Clement maintained that she and her daughter crossed the street in front of Puckett's home with the planter carried between them when Puckett fired four shotgun rounds behind them. Clement claimed that two of the shots struck her and caused the planter to explode. She also alleged that Puckett fired two additional shots "in a direction
Page 3
unknown."
¶4. Clement filed suit against Puckett on June 11, 2010. The complaint set forth three counts: (1) negligence in the operation and discharge of a firearm, (2) gross negligence in the operation and discharge of a firearm and (3) deliberate, intentional and reckless disregard of the safety of Clement and her daughter.
¶5. Before the Estate was served with process and its motion to dismiss was denied, a number of procedural motions, orders and notices were entered. The relevant procedural history of the case is summarized in the following timeline:
| Sept. 11, 2009 | Puckett allegedly shot Clement. |
| June 11, 2010 | Clement filed her complaint in the trial court. Statute of limitations tolled with 93 days remaining. 120-day period to serve process until October 12, 2010, began. |
| Aug. 18, 2010 | Trial court granted Clement's first motion for additional time to serve process until November 18, 2010. |
| Nov. 17, 2010 | Trial court granted Clement's second motion for additional time to serve process until January 31, 2011. |
| Jan. 20, 2011 | Trial court granted Clement's third motion for additional time to serve process until May 2, 2011. |
| May 3, 2011 | Statute of limitations resumed. |
Page 4
| June 27, 2011 | Trial court granted Clement's fourth motion for additional time to serve process until October 1, 2011. Statute of limitations tolled with 38 days remaining.3 |
| Oct. 2, 2011 | Statute of limitations resumed. |
| Oct. 24, 2011 | Trial court granted Clement's fifth motion for additional time to serve process until February 28, 2012. Statute of limitations tolled with 16 days remaining. |
| Feb. 29, 2012 | Statute of limitations resumed. |
| Mar. 16, 2012 | Statute of limitations expired. |
| July 31, 2014 | Warren County Chancery Court (the "chancery court") received Puckett's will for probate. Chancery court issued letters of administration to Harvey Smith4 as executor of the Estate. |
| Aug. 7, 2014 | Clement filed a motion for suggestion of death and an amended complaint. |
| Aug. 12, 2014 | Trial court substituted the Estate as the defendant. |
| Aug. 26, 2014 | Clement returned service, executed on the Estate. |
| Oct. 10, 2014 | Estate filed motion to dismiss. Estate answered the complaint. |
| Nov. 20, 2014 | Estate served requests for admission, interrogatories and production of documents on Clement. |
Page 5
| Nov. 21, 2014 | Clement answered requests for admission. |
| Mar. 10, 2015 | Puckett's heirs-at-law filed a will contest in the chancery court. |
| Apr. 10, 2015 | Clement filed notice of her response to the Estate's interrogatories and request for production of documents. |
| Mar. 4, 2016 | Chancery court recognized that Puckett's heirs-at-law had settled the will contest. |
| Mar. 15, 2016 | Chancery court issued letters of administration to Gerald Puckett as the estate's executor. |
| Mar. 17, 2016 | Gerald Puckett entered an appearance as the estate's executor in Clement's suit. |
| Mar. 18, 2016 | Estate filed a brief in support of its motion to dismiss. |
| Mar. 22, 2016 | Estate filed a notice of hearing on its motion to dismiss. |
| Apr. 14, 2016 | Trial court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss. |
| Apr. 21, 2016 | Trial court denied the Estate's motion to dismiss. |
¶6. After the hearing, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The record and the transcript before us, however, do not reflect the trial court's rationale in denying the motion to dismiss.
¶7. Aggrieved, the Estate appeals. The Estate argues that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss because (1) Clement failed to show good cause for failing to serve Puckett within the statute of limitations, and (2) it did not waive its statute-of-limitations defense. Clement responds that the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss since she demonstrated good cause and the Estate waived its defense of the statute of limitations. We will address only the issue of the statute of limitations, as it is dispositive of Clement's suit against the Estate.
Page 6
¶8. "The waiver . . . of an affirmative defense is subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review." Kinsey v. Pangborn Corp., 78 So. 3d 301, 306 (Miss. 2011). "'This Court uses a de novo standard of review when passing on questions of law including statute of limitations issues.'" Chimento v. Fuller, 965 So. 2d 668, 673 (Miss. 2007) (quoting ABC Mfg. Corp v. Doyle, 749 So. 2d 43, 45 (Miss. 1999)).
1. Waiver
¶9. The Estate did not waive its right to assert the statute of limitations as a defense. In Mississippi, "[a] defendant's failure to timely and reasonably raise and pursue the enforcement of any affirmative defense or other affirmative matter or right which would serve to terminate or stay the litigation, coupled with active participation in the litigation process, will ordinarily serve as a waiver." MS Credit Ctr., Inc. v. Horton, 926 So. 2d 167, 180 (Miss. 2006) (n.8 omitted). In order to constitute a waiver, the delay must be "substantial and unreasonable." Id.
¶10. In Horton, the amended complaint was filed on May 5, 2003. Id. The defendants filed their answers to the amended complaint on May 23, 2003, and July 7, 2003, asserting their right to compel arbitration. Id. The defendants then delayed eight months, "all the while participating in the litigation process," before moving to compel arbitration on March 22, 2004. Id. According to the Horton Court, the defendants had "provided no plausible
Page 7
explanation for th[e] delay." Id.
¶11. Unlike the delay in Horton, the seventeen-month delay between the Estate's filing of its motion to dismiss and noticing the motion for hearing was not unreasonable. Such a delay, with "no plausible explanation," might be unreasonable. Id. Here, though, the delay is reasonable because, five months after the Estate moved to dismiss, Puckett's heirs-at-law filed a will contest which questioned the legitimacy of Smith as the Estate's executor. Ultimately, the will challenge was settled, Puckett's will was set aside, and Smith was removed as executor. The settlement was recognized by the chancery court on March 4, 2016, and letters of administration were issued to Gerald Puckett on March 15, 2016. Seven days later, the Estate set its motion for hearing. The delay here is reasonable as the Estate could not be expected to set its motion for hearing and argue it before the chancery court had determined who was the proper executor of the Estate.
¶12. Further, in contrast to the defendants in Horton, the Estate did not participate actively "all the while" during the delay in the litigation process. Id. The Estate initially answered and moved to dismiss the complaint. Forty-one days later, the Estate served an initial set of discovery requests on Clement. After this, the Estate did not enter any other filings or participate in the litigation in the trial court until its new executor filed an entry of appearance after the will contest was settled. Thus, the Estate did not actively participate "all the while . . . in the litigation process" during the delay. Id.
¶13. After review of the record, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in
Page 8
determining that the Estate had waived its statute-of-limitations defense. The delay was reasonable, given the will contest, and the Estate did not participate "all the while . . . in the litigation process" during the delay. Id. Therefore, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial