Henley, Lotterhos & Henley, PLLC v. Bryant
| Decision Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 2021-IA-00994-SCT |
| Parties | HENLEY, LOTTERHOS & HENLEY, PLLC v. AMANDA BRYANT |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
¶1. Amanda Bryant brought this action against State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) and its attorneys, Henley, Lotterhos &Henley, PLLC (HLH), claiming negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on HLH's actions in a prior subrogation claim. HLH argued in a Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment that it was not a proper party to this lawsuit because it was the legal representative of the adverse party in the prior subrogation matter. For this reason, HLH argues it does not owe a duty to Bryant that could give rise to tort liability. The trial court disagreed with HLH and denied its motion. This Court granted HLH's petition for interlocutory appeal. Based on caselaw, this Court reverses the trial court's order and renders judgment in favor of HLH. Because State Farm is still party to the action, the case is remanded to the trial court for continuation of the proceedings.
¶2. On November 10, 2010, Nga Dang and Bryant were involved in a three-car collision in Gulfport. Dang was insured by State Farm and was compensated by State Farm for her injuries that arose from the accident. On October 28, 2013, State Farm, represented by HLH, brought a subrogation claim against Amanda Bryant for Dang's damages in the amount of $14,190.61 plus interest and court costs. The complaint stated that "Amanda Bryant - A Minor, may be served with process at: Minter City, MS[.]" The record evidences that HLH requested service of a summons and a copy of the complaint by a sheriff of Leflore County to Amanda Bryant personally and to "Amanda Bryant - A Minor By &thru Philip Ross, Jr." both to be served at 301 County Road 563, Minter City, Mississippi. Only one sheriff's return was filed, and it showed that Phillip Ross Jr. was personally delivered copies of the summons and complaint on November 10, 2013. No sheriff's return was filed to prove Bryant was served with the documents.
¶3. At some point, Bryant received a copy of the complaint from Phillip Ross, her father. In response to the complaint, Bryant mailed a letter to HLH at its office.[1] The letter stated, "I got served with papers from State Farm about a car wreck." Bryant explained in the letter that she had called HLH's office and was advised to make a written response in thirty days to avoid a judgment. Bryant's letter further informed HLH that she had not been issued any citations by the officer at the scene and did not believe that the collision was her fault.
¶4. On January 23, 2014, HLH filed a First Set of Requests for Admissions, Set of Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents and Things Propounded to Defendant. Notice of the filing of the documents was sent to "Amanda Bryant - A Minor" at the same Minter City address as the complaint. No response to these pleadings was filed, and following a motion to compel filed by HLH, the circuit court entered an order to compel discovery on April 22, 2014.
¶5. On September 2, 2014, the court entered a default judgment against Amanda Bryant for failure to respond to the discovery requests even after having been ordered to do so by the court. The judgment stated that "[t]he defendant's answer should be [struck] and default judgment entered for the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $14190.61," a total of $15,260.60, including interest, court costs and attorneys' fees.[2]
¶6. Pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 63-15-27(1) (Rev. 2022), HLH requested the suspension of Bryant's driver's license. Bryant alleges that she was unaware of the suspension of her license until sometime in 2019 when she was involved in another vehicle accident. Upon presenting her license to the officer, she was informed that her license had been suspended. Bryant was incarcerated for driving with a suspended license and subsequently contacted HLH. Allegedly, HLH informed Bryant that the only remedy for her suspended license would be to pay the judgment.
¶7. Bryant obtained counsel and filed a motion in the Leflore County Chancery Court to set aside the default judgment and dismiss the action. Bryant alleged that she had never been served with process and had never entered an appearance. In response to Bryant's motion, HLH filed a copy of Bryant's handwritten letter to support its argument that it had reason to believe that she had been served properly.
¶8. Special Judge Bell, who was appointed by this Court, held a hearing on August 31, 2020, at which evidence was presented, and HLH was granted additional time to "contact the Deputy or someone with knowledge" as to the issue of service of process. On September 10, 2020, HLH filed its response to the motion to set aside the default judgment stating that "there is no evidence explaining why a sheriff's return does not exist" and that, relying on Bryant's letter, HLH had a good faith belief that service had been proper. HLH requested additional time to serve Bryant.
¶9. On September 14, 2020, the trial court entered an order setting aside the default judgment and dismissing the case without prejudice. The court found that the record did not reflect proper service of process and that no answer had been filed. Bryant had testified at the August 31 hearing that she did not live at the Minter City address and that, after writing her letter to HLH, she had no notice about anything regarding the lawsuit until 2019 when she learned her license had been suspended. The court also denied HLH additional time to serve process.
¶10. On November 20, 2020, Bryant filed the present litigation against HLH and State Farm for negligence, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on HLH's actions in the previous subrogation claim. On March 18, 2021, after filing its answer, HLH filed a Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment. HLH argued that "Mississippi law provides that a malicious prosecution claim is not viable as to the lawyer representing the plaintiff's adversary in the underlying litigation" and that HLH had been acting at all times as attorneys for State Farm and, thus, owed no duty to Bryant that would make it liable under any tort theory.
¶11. On August 11, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying HLH's motion. HLH filed a petition for interlocutory appeal, and this Court granted permission to appeal and stayed the case in circuit court.
¶12. The single issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by denying HLH's motion.
HLH asks whether an attorney owes a duty to an adverse party that could create tort liability. The parties' arguments can best be summarized as follows:
¶13. HLH filed a Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and attached a copy of the complaint and HLH's answer. In her reply memorandum in opposition to HLH's motion, Bryant attached the record and hearing transcript from the prior subrogation matter for the trial court's consideration. Bryant argued that Breeden v Buchanan supports her argument that, when considering a motion to dismiss, "the court may certainly consider the content of the complaint, the documents attached to the complaint, and the documents that are referred to in the complaint if they are central to the plaintiff's claim even though they are not attached to the complaint." Breeden v. Buchanan, 164 So.3d 1057, 1068 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). At the hearing, HLH argued that its motion was a motion to dismiss since discovery had not yet begun and its motion was based on a question of law. The trial court styled its order a denial of HLH's motion to dismiss.
¶14. HLH requested its motion to be heard as a motion to dismiss and argued that because it did not introduce matters outside the pleadings, it was entitled to have its motion treated as such. "When considering a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and the motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond reasonable doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any set of facts in support of her claim." State v. Bayer Corp., 32 So.3d 496, 502 (Miss. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Howard v. Est. of Harper ex rel. Harper, 947 So.2d 854, 856 (Miss. 2006)).
¶15. HLH, however, filed its motion in the alternative. Based on the inclusion and consideration of the record from the prior subrogation matter by the trial court, HLH's motion should have been considered as a motion for summary judgment. Rule 12(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure is clear that "[i]f, on motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment[.]" Because HLH styled its motion as, alternatively, one for either dismissal or summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial