Harrison Enterprises, Inc. v. Trilogy Communications, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed summary judgment for Trilogy Communications in its action to collect an open-account debt from Harrison Enterprises and its individual guarantor. The court held that a letter acknowledging the overdue account and promising payment in full was sufficiently definite to toll the statute of limitations, and that equitable estoppel would also prevent reliance on the limitations period. It further held that the guarantor's limitations period began after the principal debtor became unable to pay.

Holdings

1. The letter was a definite and unequivocal written acknowledgment of the indebtedness and promise to pay, and therefore tolled the three-year statute of limitations applicable to the open account.
2. Even if the letter had not tolled the statute, defendants would be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations because their repeated promises and assurances induced Trilogy to delay filing suit.
3. Because Harrison was secondarily liable under his personal guarantee, the statute of limitations did not begin to run against him until the prescribed condition of Harrison Enterprises' inability to pay occurred, which was at least after the June 10, 1997 letter.
4. Summary judgment for Trilogy was proper because defendants failed to assert a viable defense, there was no genuine issue of material fact, and Trilogy was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the June 10, 1997 letter constituted a definite and unequivocal acknowledgment of the debt and promise to pay sufficient to toll the statute of limitations on the open-account claim.
2. Whether equitable estoppel would prevent defendants from asserting the statute of limitations even if the letter did not toll it.
3. When the statute of limitations began to run against Elvin Lee Harrison as a secondary guarantor.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper because no genuine issue of material fact existed and Trilogy was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Disposition

affirmed