 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Spiegel v. Western Surety Co.8/9/2005
bankruptcy proceeding that led to the decisions on September 30, 2002 and August 20, 2003, which Spiegel argues to be the dates upon which his action accrued. On September 30, 2002, the bankruptcy court held that Spiegel's New Jersey judgment was unenforceable in Mississippi, and on August 20, 2003, the United States District Court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court. Because of this, Spiegel argues that he was unable to collect any of the judgment he held against Rayner. Several months later, as noted, Spiegel instituted the instant suit, claiming that the circuit clerk's error destroyed his chances of collecting on the judgment against Rayner and that the circuit clerk should, therefore, have to pay him the value of the judgment for this error.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
DID THE CIRCUIT COURT ERR IN FINDING SPIEGEL'S ACTION TO BE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS?
. Spiegel actually states two separate issues in his brief; however, both of the issues he states turn upon this single issue regarding the circuit court's finding on the statute of limitations. Because of this, we have combined the two issues stated by Spiegel into one, and we will discuss the issue accordingly.
. Spiegel makes a number of arguments and sub-arguments, but the main thrust of Spiegel's argument is that his cause of action did not accrue until either September 30, 2002 or August 20, 2003, because one of these two dates is when he actually suffered an actionable injury. He argues that this is so because he was not injured by the circuit clerk's failure to enroll his foreign judgment until the bankruptcy court rendered its decision or when the district court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court. In other words, Spiegel argues that he suffered no actual loss until September 30, 2002 or August 20, 2003, and that any action he may have brought before those dates would have been premature (of course, an obvious problem with this argument is that his complaint was filed on December 23, 2002; thus, if his action did not accrue until August 20, 2003, his complaint was prematurely filed and his own argument would bear this out).
. The appellees argue that Spiegel's action accrued at the latest on June 9, 1997, because that is the latest date upon which Spiegel can be said to have discovered or known of the clerk's error. Having discovered the error at least on this date (if not earlier), his cause of action based upon that error accrued on this date. Because of this, the appellees argue that Spiegel's claim is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. According to the appellees, the applicable statute of limitations is the one year statute of limitations under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act ("MTCA"), Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-46-11 (Rev. 2002). The appellees also argue that Spiegel did not comply with the statutory notice of claim requirements of the MTCA and that, therefore, Spiegel's action was not only time-barred under the statute of limitations, but also procedurally barred under the MTCA. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11.
. The appellees finally argue that even if this action does not fall under the MTCA, then the action is still barred by the general three year statute of limitations under Mississippi Code Annotated § 15-1-49 (Rev. 2003).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. We employ de novo review in analyzing challenges to a trial court's rulings on issues of law, such as statute of limitations issues. Alexander v. Womack, 857 So. 2d 59, 62 ( ) (Miss. 2003). We also employ de novo review in determining issues relating to the proper application of the MTCA. City of Jackson v. Brister, 838 So. 2d 274, 278 ( ) (Miss. 2003).<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|