Robinson v. Smith

Decision Date15 February 2022
Docket Number2020-CA-01249-COA
Citation334 So.3d 476
Parties Lionel ROBINSON and Ferante Sims, Appellants v. Patrick W. SMITH, Appellee
CourtMississippi Court of Appeals

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: CARLOS EUGENE MOORE, Grenada

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: ROBERT F. STACY JR., Oxford, JOSHUA A. TURNER, Jackson

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE AND EMFINGER, JJ.

WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This case arises out of a two-car wreck in Grenada. The driver of one car, Lionel Robinson, and his passenger, Ferante Sims (collectively, "the plaintiffs"), sued the driver of the other car, Patrick Smith, alleging that Smith's negligence caused the accident. Smith filed an answer denying liability. Smith also filed a separate document entitled "Counter-Claim" in which he alleged that Robinson's negligence caused the accident. Robinson did not respond to the stand-alone Counter-Claim, and the circuit court subsequently entered a default judgment against Robinson on the Counter-Claim as to negligence and liability. After the default judgment was entered, Smith filed a motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. Smith argued that the default judgment on the Counter-Claim established that Robinson's negligence caused the wreck as the "law of the case." The plaintiffs then filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and responded to Smith's motion for summary judgment. The circuit court denied the plaintiffsmotion to set aside the default judgment and held that Smith was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ complaint based on the "law of the case." Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the circuit court also certified as final its order granting summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against Smith. The plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the grant of summary judgment, which was denied, and a notice of appeal.

¶2. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred by (1) denying their motion to set aside the default judgment, (2) granting Smith's motion for summary judgment, (3) denying their motion to reconsider the order granting summary judgment, and (4) denying their motion to dismiss Smith's Counter-Claim pursuant to the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA), Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-46-1 to -23 (Rev. 2019).1 For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Robinson was not in default and that no default judgment should have been entered against him. Therefore, the order granting summary judgment against both plaintiffs, which was based solely on the default judgment, also must be reversed. We reverse and remand the case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not address the denial of the plaintiffsmotion to dismiss pursuant to the MTCA because that ruling is not properly before this Court on appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3. In August 2019, Robinson, Sims, and Smith were involved in a two-car wreck at the intersection of Highway 8 and Highway 51 in Grenada. Robinson and Smith were driving the respective cars, while Sims was a passenger in Robinson's car.

¶4. In March 2020, Robinson and Sims filed a complaint against Smith in the Grenada County Circuit Court. They alleged that Smith's negligence caused the wreck.

¶5. On May 20, 2020, Smith filed an answer denying liability. The same day, Smith also filed a separate document entitled "Counter-Claim." The Counter-Claim alleged that Robinson's negligence caused the wreck and sought compensatory damages from Robinson. The answer and the Counter-Claim were filed by different attorneys. The answer's certificate of service stated that it was served on plaintiffscounsel by United States mail on May 15, 2020. The Counter-Claim's certificate of service stated that it was served on plaintiffscounsel "by electronic mail and United States mail" on May 15, 2020.

¶6. Robinson did not answer or otherwise respond to Smith's Counter-Claim. On June 22, 2020, Smith filed an application for entry of default and a motion for a default judgment on his Counter-Claim. The same day, the clerk entered a default, and the circuit judge signed a default judgment against Robinson "as to liability for the negligence outlined in [Smith's Counter-Claim]." The judgment stated that damages would be determined at a later date. The default judgment was entered four days later on June 26, 2020.

¶7. On July 30, 2020, Smith filed a motion for summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against him. Smith argued that the default judgment on the Counter-Claim established that Robinson's negligence caused the accident as the "law of the case."

¶8. On August 4, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. They argued that Smith's stand-alone "Counter-Claim" was procedurally improper because a counterclaim must be filed in an answer under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a response to Smith's motion for summary judgment. They argued that summary judgment should be denied because the default judgment should not have been entered.

¶9. On September 21, 2020, the circuit court denied the plaintiffsmotion to set aside the default judgment, granted Smith's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed all the plaintiffs’ claims against Smith with prejudice. The court concluded that Smith's Counter-Claim was procedurally proper, that Robinson was in default because he failed to respond, and that the plaintiffs waived any objection to the form of the Counter-Claim by failing to respond. The court further reasoned that Smith was entitled to summary judgment on all the plaintiffs’ claims against him because the default judgment established as the "law of the case" that Robinson's negligence caused the accident. The court subsequently entered an order certifying its order granting summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims against Smith as "final" pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

¶10. On September 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. In this motion, the plaintiffs denied—for the first time—that Smith properly served the Counter-Claim. They admitted that Smith had served his answer by mail, but they denied that Smith ever properly served his separate Counter-Claim. They pointed out that Smith's answer did not mention any counterclaim. They also noted that the Counter-Claim's certificate of service stated that it was being served by both United States mail and email, but they denied that Smith had in fact served the Counter-Claim by either mail or email. The plaintiffs claimed that they were unaware of the Counter-Claim until after the default judgment had been entered, at which point plaintiffscounsel requested and received a copy of the Counter-Claim from the circuit clerk.2

¶11. In his response to the plaintiffsmotion for reconsideration, Smith asserted that on May 15, 2020, he had served the Counter-Claim on plaintiffscounsel "via electronic mail." Smith argued that service by email is permissible under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(1). The record does include a copy of a May 15, 2020 email from Smith's attorney to plaintiffscounsel that appears to attach the Counter-Claim. Smith acknowledged that he did not serve the Counter-Claim by United States mail, as stated in his certificate of service. Smith characterized this misstatement in his certificate of service as a "[c]lerical error."

¶12. In rebuttal, the plaintiffs argued that Smith failed to properly serve the Counter-Claim by email pursuant to Rule 5(b)(1) because there was no "acknowledgment" of receipt.3 It is not clear whether plaintiffscounsel denies that he, in fact, received the subject email and attachment or only denies that Smith obtained an "acknowledgment" of receipt.

¶13. On October 23, 2020, the circuit court denied the plaintiffsmotion for reconsideration. The court found that the plaintiffs "waived any right to complain about the service of the [C]ounter-[C]laim when they failed to raise the issue" in their prior motion to set aside the default judgment.

¶14. On November 2, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss Smith's Counter-Claim, alleging that Smith failed to file a pre-suit notice of claim, as required by the MTCA. See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11 (Rev. 2019).

¶15. On November 5, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court's order granting summary judgment and dismissing their claims against Smith. As noted above, the circuit court had certified that ruling as final pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Several months later, the circuit court denied the plaintiffsmotion to dismiss the Counter-Claim pursuant to the MTCA. The court held that the plaintiffs waived all defenses under the MTCA by failing to file an answer to the Counter-Claim.

¶16. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred (1) by denying their motion to set aside the default judgment, (2) by granting Smith's motion for summary judgment, (3) by denying their motion to reconsider the order granting summary judgment, and (4) by denying their motion to dismiss the Counter-Claim pursuant to the MTCA.

ANALYSIS

I. Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), this Court has jurisdiction to review the circuit court's order granting summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. Because that order depends on the circuit court's prior orders granting a default judgment on Smith's Counter-Claim and denying the plaintiffsmotion to set aside the default judgment, we must review those orders as well.

¶17. We begin our analysis by identifying which aspects of the case are before this Court on appeal. In general, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. LaFontaine v. Holliday , 110 So. 3d 785, 787 (¶8) (Miss. 2013) ; Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-3 (Rev. 2019). "Generally, a final judgment is one that adjudicates the merits of the controversy and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT