Curry v. Turner

832 So. 2d 508 (Miss. 2002) · Supreme Court of Mississippi · December 12, 2002 · No. No. 2000-CA-01309-SCT

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of wrongful-death claims against defendants added after the statute of limitations had expired. The court held that filing a motion for leave to amend does not toll the limitations period and that the amended claims did not relate back under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) because the notice and mistake requirements were not satisfied. The court also held that the minor beneficiaries’ claims were barred because the administratrix and mother represented their interests for limitations purposes under Mississippi’s one-suit wrongful-death statute.

Holdings

  1. A motion for leave to amend, even when accompanied by the proposed amended complaint, does not toll the statute of limitations until the trial court rules on the motion or otherwise make an amended complaint effective before it is filed.
  2. The amended claims against Money Pillai and Trent, Dent, and Ladonna Turner did not relate back to the original complaint because the new defendants did not receive the required notice and did not know or have reason to know that they would have been defendants but for a mistake concerning the proper party.
  3. Mississippi Code section 15-1-59 did not preserve the minor children's claims against the new defendants where the wrongful-death action was brought by the administratrix on behalf of all beneficiaries and the wrongful-death statute requires a single action.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a motion for leave to amend accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, filed before expiration of the statute of limitations but granted and formally filed afterward, tolls the limitations period.
  2. Whether the amended claims against the new defendants relate back under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).
  3. Whether the minor-savings statute, Mississippi Code section 15-1-59, preserved the wrongful-death claims of the deceased's minor children despite the limitations period having expired for the administratrix and adult beneficiary.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (21)

  • Rademaker v. E.D. Flynn Exp. Co., 17 F.2d 15 (5th Cir. 1927)(discussed but not followed)
  • Bradley v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 46 F. Supp. 2d 583, 586-87 (S.D. Miss. 1999)(discussed but not followed)
  • Mayes v. AT&T Info. Sys., Inc., 867 F.2d 1172 (8th Cir. 1989)(discussed but not followed)
  • Potts v. Hines, 57 Miss. 735 (1880)(distinguished by procedural context)
  • Green v. Bd. of Tippah County Supervisors, 58 Miss. 337 (1880)(distinguished by procedural context)
  • Brown v. Goolsby, 34 Miss. 437 (1857)(distinguished by procedural context)
  • Estes v. Starnes, 732 So. 2d 251 (Miss. 1999)(followed in general principle)
  • Womble v. Singing River Hosp., 618 So. 2d 1252 (Miss. 1993)(followed in general principle)
  • Parker v. Miss. Game & Fish Comm'n, 555 So. 2d 725 (Miss. 1989)(followed in general principle)
  • Brown v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 669 So. 2d 92, 94 (Miss. 1996)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…