I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 1 2 4 7 - S CT M ONTY FL ETC

HER
v. L I M EC O C OR P ORAT

ION
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 02/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. S HARI ON R. AYCOCK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LE E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: M I CH A EL N
. W A TTS R. BRA DLEY BEST J UL I E M UR P HY B URNS T E I N PETE R C
. SA LES ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE E: L. F
. S AM S , J R. M AR GA RET SAM S GRA TZ NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 11/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 1 2 4 9 - S CT R. W . W HI TAK ER
v. L I M EC O C OR P ORAT

ION A ND WI

L L I AM KI DD D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 02/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. S HARI ON R. AYCOCK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LE E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: M I CH A EL N
. W A TTS R. BRA DLEY BEST J UL I E M UR P HY B URNS T E I N PETE R C. SALES ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : L. F
. S AM S , J R. M AR GA RET SAM S GRA TZ

### 2

NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 11/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 1 2 6 2 - S CT T -R E X 2 0 0 0, I N C . v. BR ET T KI DD A ND J

AMI E K I DD D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 27/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. P AUL S
. F UND ERB URK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LE E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: M I CH A EL N
. W A TTS R. BRA DLEY BEST J UL I E M UR P HY B URNS T E I N PETE R C
. SA LES ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : L. F
. S AM S , J R. M AR GA RET SAM S GRA TZ NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 11/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he pl ai nt i f

f s i n thr ee cas es , T
- R E X 2000, I nc. , R
. W
. W hi t aker , and M onty Fl et cher ( her ei naf t er“Pl ai nt i f

f s ”) , s ued the def

endant s , W i l l i am K i dd , B re t tK i dd, J ami e K i dd, and L i m eco Corpor at i on ( her ei naf t er“D ef endant s ”) , i n L ee Count y C i r cui tC ourtf oral l eged debt s ow ed pur s uantt o a s t ock- pur chas e agr eementand pr om i s s ory not es . I n due cour s e, the Pl ai nt i f f s ’ act i ons w er e di s m i s s ed due t o i ns uf f i ci ency of

pr oces s and i ns uf

f i ci ency of

s ervi ce

### Bre tt Kidd and Jami e Ki dd are the s on and da ughter, respec tively, of Wil li am Kidd. 1 

### 3 o f p ro c e s s . See M iss. R
. C iv. P. 12 (b)(4 )-( 5 ). T h e P lai n ti ffs ap p ea led to u s. F ind ing n o erro r,
we a f f i rm. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. T he thr ee consol i dat ed cas es bef or e thi s C ourt st em f

r om contr act negot i at i ons that b e g a n in 2 0 0 1 for the p u rch ase o f th e T -R ex 2 0 0 0 h o ck ey team in T u p elo. T h is ap p e a l, how ever , does notconce rn the al l eged br eac h of contr act , butthe pr ocedur al hi s t ory of the thr ee s ui t s . T hes e thr ee c om pl ai nt s w er e f i l ed on D ece m ber11, 2003, i n the C i r cui tC our tof L ee Count y. ¶3
. Fi r s t , Pl a i nt i f

f T- RE X 20 00 , I nc . , f

i l e d s ui t a ga i ns t Br e t t K i dd and J ami e K i dd f or all eg ed b rea ch o f a stoc k -pu rch ase a g ree m en t (he reina ft er th e “T -R E X ca se” ). T h e P lai n ti ffs i n T
- R E X s erved W i l l i am K i dd w i t h t he compl ai ntand tw o s um m ons es w hi ch had be en is s u e d fo r s e rv ic e o n B re tt K id d a n d J a m ie K id d
. T h e s e c o n d la w s u it w a s fi le d b y R .W
. 1 W hi t akeragai ns tL i m eco Corpor at i on and W i l l i am K i dd ( her ei naf t erthe “W hi t akercas e”) bas ed on the al l egat i on thatL i m eco a nd K i dd had f ai l ed t o pay a $375, 000 pr om i s s ory not e. T he thi r d l aw s ui tw as f i l ed by M onty Fl et cheragai ns tL i m eco ( her ei naf t erthe “Fl et cher
cas e”) al l egi ng thatL i m eco ha d bre ache d a sec ond $375, 000 pr om i s s ory not e. T he W hi t aker and Fl et chercom pl ai nt s w er e s erved on J anuary 23, 2004, vi a hand- del i very on W i l l i am K id d a s m a n a g in g d ire c to r o f L im e c o a t th e re sid e n c e sh a re d b y W ill iam a n d B re tt K id d . A ll thr e e s umm on s e s i s s ue d f ors e rvi c e on the D e f

e nd a nt s a nd s e rve d o n W i l l i a m K i dd r e ad:

“ Y o u a re n o t r e q u ir e d to fi le a n a n s w e r o r o th e r p le a d in g b u t y o u m a y d o so if y o u d e s ir e .”

### 4

T h is la n g u a g e e rro n e o u sly c o m p lied w ith re q u ire m e n ts fo r a R u le 8 1 su m m o n s, n o t a
s u m m o n s c o n s is te n t w ith th e re q u ir e m e n t o f R u le 4
. See M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 81 and 4. ¶ 4 . W illia m K id d , pro se , and on behal f of hi m s el f , L i m eco, J ami e K i dd and B r ettK i dd dr af t ed, hand- del i ver ed and m ai l ed t o the Pl ai nt i f f s ’ f orm ercouns el r es pons es t o the thr ee compl ai nt s . T hes e r es pons es w er e s erve d on the Pl ai nt i f f s ’ couns el on February 20, 2004; yetM r . K i dd –i n acc or dance w i th the pl ai n l anguage of the s um m ons thatthe f i l i ng of “an
an sw er or o ther p lead ing ” w as n o t r eq u ir ed

– d id n o t f il e the an sw ers w ith the c ir cu itclerk ’s of f i ce. N one of

the u nfi l ed res pons es i ncl uded the def ens es of i ns uf f i ci ency of

pr oces s or insu ffi cien cy o f serv ice o f pro ce ss p u rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 (b)(4 )- (5). ¶5
. U p o n the en try o f the clerk ’s d efa u lt p u rsua n t to M issi ssipp i R u le o f C ivil P roc ed u re 5 5 (a ), th e P lain tiffs in a ll th re e c a se s m o v e d fo r th e e n try o f a d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t p u rsu a n t to M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

C i vi l P r ocedur e 55( b)
. Form ercouns el f orthe Pl ai nt i f

f s f al s el y t es t i f

i ed vi a af f i davi tatt ache d t o the mot i on f or defaultjudgm entthatno ans w erhad bee n f i l ed or
se rv e d
. T h e K id d s d id n o t rec e iv e the req u isite n o tice o f th e m o tio n fo r d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t; how ever , def

aul tj udgm ent s w er e l at ere nt er ed i n eac h of the thr ee c as es . T he K i dds had no k n o w ledg e o f the se d efa u ltjud g m en ts un ti l th e n ew co u n sel retained b y T -R E X , W h it ak er, and Fl et cherf

i l ed N ot i ce t o E nr ol l For ei gn Judgm ent s i n the Fr ankl i n C ounty, A l abama, C i r cui tC our t , s eeki ng t o enf or ce the L ee C ounty de f aul tj udgm ent s . T he K i dds and Li m eco f i l ed M ot i ons t o S etA s i de the D ef aul tJ udgm ent s and f

orotherr el i ef

on Sept ember20, 2006, al l egi ng thatthe def

aul tj udgm ent s w er e i m proper be caus e they had s erved r es pons i ve p lea d in g s o n th e fo rm e r c o u n se l fo r P lain tiffs. T h e P lain tiffs c o n c e d e d th a t th e d e fa u lt

### 5

j udgm ent s ha d b e e n i mpr op e r l y e nt e r e d wi tho utno t i c e t o the K i dd s orLi mec o, a nd the part i es s ubm i tt ed agr eed or der s s ett i ng as i de the def aul tj udgm ent s , w hi ch the ci r cui tj udge
exec ut ed and c aus ed t o be f i l ed i n eac h of

the ca s es . Fur therm or e, eac h or derpr ovi ded that thatthe “D ef

end ants shall h ave thi rty days f r om [ the dat e of

the or der ] i n w hi ch t o f i l e a
re s p o n s iv e p le a d in g .” ¶6. T he def

endant s the n f

i l e d the i ra ns w er s t o the compl ai nt s i n the T-RE X , W hi t aker , and Fl et cherc as es on D ece m ber11, 2006. T hes e ans w er s r ai s ed the def ens es of i ns uf f i ci ency
o f p ro c e ss a n d in su ffic ien c y o f se rv ice o f p ro c e s s p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )(4 )-(5 ). O n D e c e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , the K id d s a n d L im e c o file d M o tio n s to D i s m i s s f

or L ack of Servi ce of

Pr oces s as t o eac h caus e of act i on. T he Pl ai nt i f

f s oppos ed thes e mot i ons i n eac h of the thr ee c as es . Fol l ow i ng a M arch 2 0, 2 007, hear i ng, the Lee C ounty C i r cui tC ourt , J udge Shar i on R
. A ycock pr es i di ng, di s m i s s ed the W hi t akerand F l et cher cases w i tho ut pr ej ud i ce, based o n the f i nd i ng s that pr ocess and service of process
w er e i ns uf

f i ci entand thatpr opers ervi ce ha d notbeen had w i thi n 120 days as r equi r ed by M i ssi ssi ppi R ul e of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e 4( h)
. T he Lee C ounty C i r cui tC our t , J udge Paul F un derburk p res i ding, fol l ow i ng an A pri l 24 , 20 07 , he aring , dis m i ssed the T -R E X case
w i thoutpr ej udi ce ba s ed on the s ame f i ndi ngs . T he Pl ai nt i f

f s f i l ed t i m el y m ot i ons t o al t eror amend t he j udgm ent s i n eac h of the ca s es , al l of

w hi ch w er e deni ed by the res pect i ve tr i al j ud ge s . The Pl a i nt i f

f s t i mel y a pp e a l e d t o us i n e a c h of the s e c a s e s , a nd we h ave now
c o n so lid a ted th e c a se s o n a p p e a l.

### 6 DI S CUS S I ON ¶ 7
. T h is C o u rtre v ie w s d e n o v o a tr ia l c o u rt ’ s g r a n t o f a m o tio n to d is m is s . V icksbu rg Par tne rs, L. P. v. Ste

phe ns , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d 5 0 7 , 5 1 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); Spencer
v. Sta te , 880 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (M i s s . 2004). A tr i al courtcan a cqui r e j ur i s di ct i on overan in d iv id u a l th ro u g h s e rv ic e o f p ro c e s s . Mans ourv. Charm axI ndus
. , 680 S o. 2 d 852, 854 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng Aldr idg e v. Firs t N at ’l Bank , 165 M i s s . 1, 14, 144 So. 469, 470 (1 9 3 2 )). In a d d iti o n , a tria l c o u rt c a n a c q u ire ju risd ictio n o v e r th e p e rso n th ro u g h h is
a p p e a ra n c e . I

d . ( ci t i ng S tate ex rel

Moa k v. Moo re , 3 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 1 , 1 0 1 2 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 )). W ith o u t e ith e r o c c u rr e n c e , th e tria l c o u rtd o e s n o t h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r th e p e r s o n . Id
. ( ci t i ng Moo re , 373 So. 2d at1012)
. T hi s C ourth as st at ed, “W hetherthe ci r cui tcourthad prope r j uri sdi ct i on t o h ear a part i cularm at t er i s a quest i on of l aw , and this C ou rtm ust ther ef or e appl y a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew t o thi s i s s ue. ” V icksbu rg P artn ers , 911 So. 2d at 51 3 (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶8
. P roc ess an d serv ice of p roc ess are go v ern ed b y M issi ssipp i R u le o f C ivil P roc ed u re 4. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e 12 governs the manneri n w hi ch def ens es m us tbe
r ai s ed. A courtcan c onsi derthe af f i rm at i ve def

ens es of i ns uf f i ci ency of

pr oces s and i ns uf f i ci ency of

s ervi ce of

pr oces s onl y i f

they ar e pr oper l y r ai s ed and ha ve notbeen w ai ved. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (h )(1 ) sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: A def ens e of l ack of

j ur i s di ct i on overthe per s on, i m pr opervenue, i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f

p r o c e s s , o ri n s u f

f i c i e n c y o f

s e rv i c e o f

p r o c e s s i s wa i v e d ( A) i f omi tt ed f

r om a mot i on i n the ci r cumst ance s de s cr i bed i n s ubdi vi s i on ( g) , or ( B ) i f i ti s nei therm ade by am ot i on un der t hi s rul e nori ncl uded i n a r es po ns i ve p l e a di ng o ra n a mend mentthe r e of p e rmi t t e d by Rul e 1 5( a ) t o be m ade a s a mat t erof

cour s e.

### 7

¶9. O n appea l the Pl ai nt i f f s r eques t that the or der s di s m i s s i ng the T
- R E X , W hi t aker , and Fl et chercompl ai nt s be r ever s ed and the ca s es r emanded f ortr i al
. T he Pl ai nt i f

f s r ai s e the fo llo w in g tw o iss u e s fo r th is C o u rt’s r e v iew : (1) D i d the tr i al courterri n hol di ng thatthe pr oces s i s s ued t o the D ef endant L i m eco Corpor at i on di d nots ubs t ant i al l y compl y w i th M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 4( b) w her e the s um m ons c ont ai ned the es s ent i al el ement s of a s um m ons es t abl i s hed by R ul e 4? (2 ) D id th e trial c o u rt e rr in h o ld in g th a t th e D e fe n d a n ts B re tt K id d , Ja m ie K i dd, W i l l i am K i dd, and Li m eco Corpor at i on di d notw ai ve thei rdef ens es of in su ffic ien t p ro c e ss a n d in su ffic ien t se rv ice o f p ro c e ss w h e re th e D e fe n d a n ts s erved ans w er s t o the compl ai nt s and f ai l ed t o as s ertany af

f i rm at i ve def

ens es bas ed on i ns uf

f i ci ency of

pr oces s ori ns uf

f i ci ency of

s ervi ce of

pr oces s ? ¶10
. F or the sake of t od ay’s di scussi on , w e res t at e these i ssues. I . W H ET H ER PR O C ESS A N D SER V I C E O F PR O C ESS S UB S T AN T I AL L Y C OMPL I E D W I T H M I S S I S S I P P I RU L E OF C IV IL P R O C E D U R E 4 (b ). ¶ 1 1
. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 (b ) sta tes : T he s um m ons s hal l be dat ed and s i gned by the cl erk, be underthe s eal of the court , cont ai n t he nam e of t he courtand the names of the part i es , be di r ect ed t o the def

endant , s t at e the name and addr es s of the pl ai nt i f

f ' s a t t orney, i f

any, o therw ise th e p lai n ti ff' s ad d ress, an d the tim e w ith in w h ich th ese rules re q u ir e th e d e fe n d a n t to a p p e a r a n d d e fe n d , an d sh a ll n o tify h im th a t in c a se o f h is f ai l ur e t o do s o j udgm entby def aul tw i l l be r ender ed aga i ns thi m f orthe r el i ef d e m a n d e d in th e c o m p lain t. W h e re th e re a re m u ltip le p lain tiffs o r m u lti p le def endant s , orboth, the s um m ons , exce ptw her e s ervi ce i s m ade by publ i cat i on, m ay cont ai n, i n l i eu of the names of

al l part i es , the name of the f i r s tparty on eac h s i de and the name and ad dress of the party t o be s erved. Su mm o n s s e r v e d

b y p r o c e s s s e r v e rs h a l l

s u b s t an t i al l

y c o n f o r m t o Fo r m 1A. Su m m o n s s e r v e d

b y s h e r iff s h a ll s u b s ta n tia lly c o n fo r m to Fo r m 1 A A
. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶12. T he s um m onses i ssued i n the thr ee cas es di d not s ubs t ant i al l y conf orm w i th ei ther F orm 1A or Form 1A A , but i nst ead i ncluded l ang uag e consi st ent w i th a R ule 81 sum m on s.

### 8

See Sum m ons For m s 1D , 1D D
. C ons equent l y, D ef endantW i l l i am K i dd w as i ns truct ed that a f ai l ur e t o appea rand def

end may r es ul ti n def

aul tj udgm ent ; how everhe w as noti ns truct ed t o “ f i l e th e o r i g i n a l
. . . r e s p o n s e wi th th e Cl e rk o f th i s Co u r twi th i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i me af t erw ar d. ” I ns t ead W i l l i am K i dd re cei ved a summ ons t hatre ads as f ol l ow s : “Y ou ar e not
r equi r ed t o f

i l e an ans w erorotherpl eadi ng butyou m ay do s o i f you des i r e. ” W i l l i am K i dd
c o m p lied w ith th is su m m o n s w h e n h e se rv e d the P lain tiffs’ a tto rn e y w ith a re sp o n se , b u t d id notf i l e i t . W e unques t i onabl y f i nd thata s um m ons does nots ubs t ant i al l y compl y w i th the
r equi r ement s of

M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e 4 w hen, as her e, the R ul e 4 s um m ons i ncl udes l anguage contr ary t o the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s . B ecause t he summ ons w as def i ci enton i t s f

ace , w e f i nd t hatt he tr i al cour tdi d noterri n hol di ng thatthe pr oces s i s s ued t o the D ef

endant s di d notcompl y w i th M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 4( b) , and that di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce w as r equ i red due t o f ai l ur e t o s erve val i d pr oces s upon the d e fe n d a n ts w ith in 1 2 0 tw e n ty d a y s o f th e fil in g o f th e co m p lain t p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le
o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 (h ). See J o h n so n v. T

h o m a s Ex R e l. P o la tsidis , 982 So. 2d 405, 411 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). W e th u s fi n d n o m e ri t in th is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r. ¶13. Pl ai nt i f

f s s t at e that s ervi ce of pr oces s i s s uf f i ci ent as t o L i m eco i n the W hi t akerand Fl et chercas es , yetci t e no f act s orauthor i ty i n s upportof thi s pr emi s e. T he D ef endant s do notcont es tthe s ervi ce ha d i n the Fletcherc a se o n W ill iam K id d b e c a u se h e w a s s e rv e d in h is o ff ic ia l c a p a c ity a s m a n a g in g d ir e c to r o f L im e c o . See M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 4( d) ( 4)
. T o the contr ary, D ef

endant s cont end thati n the W hitakercas e, s ervi ce of

pr oces s w as i ns uf

f i ci ent
w her e W i l l i am K i dd w as served as di r ect orof Li m eco, butw as nots erved i n hi s i ndi vi dual
c a p a c ity d e sp ite h a v in g b e e n n a m e d a s a n in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n t. T h e o ffic ial C o m m e n t to

### 9

M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 sta tes , “A fte r a n a c tio n is c o m m e n c e d , the c ler k is
r equi r ed t o i s s ue a se par at e summ ons foreach def endantexcepti n t he cas e of summ ons by publ i cat i on. ” Si nce Pl ai nt i f f s do notar gue s uf

f i ci ency of

servi ce of

pr oces s as t o W i l l i am K i dd i n the W

hitakerc a se , it is p resu m ed that P lai n ti ffs co n ce d e this issue
. M o reo v er, P lain tiffs d o n o t co n ten d th a t se rv ice o f p ro c e ss w a s s u ffic ien t as to Ja m ie a n d B re tt K id d in the T-REX

c a se w h e re in W ill iam K id d w a s s e rv e d o n th e ir b e h a lf. A s to Ja m ie K id d , an o u to f-s tate re sid e n t, se rv ice o n h e r fa th e r, W ill iam K id d , at W il li am ’s reside n ce w as in su ffi cie n t. W i l l i am K i dd’ s r es i dence w as notthe “def endant ’ s us ual pl ace of

abode” as cont empl at ed by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 4( d) ( 1) ( B )
. A l though Bre t tK i dd s har ed a r es i dence
w i th hi s f

ather , s ervi ce of

pr oces s on Bre t tw as i ns uf f i ci entw her e Pl ai nt i f

f s f ai l ed t o f ol l ow
u p d e liv e ry o f th e s u m m o n s to W ill iam b y m a ili n g a c o p y o f th e s u m m o n s a n d c o m p lain t to B re tt. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 (d )(1 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 8 ) d icta tes : T he s um m ons and compl ai nt shal l b e served t ogether
. Servi ce by s her i f f or p ro c e ss se rv e r sh a ll b e m a d e a s fo llo w s: (1 ) U p o n a n in d iv id u a l o th e r th a n a n u n m a rrie d in fa n t o r a m e n tally in c o m p e te n t p e rs o n , (A ) b y d e liv e rin g a c o p y o f th e su m m o n s a n d o f th e c o m p lain t to h im per s onal l y ort o an age ntauthor i zed by appoi ntm entorby l aw t o r ece i ve se rv ice o f p ro c e ss ; o r (B ) if se rv ice u n d e r su b p a ra g ra p h (1 )(A ) o f th is s ubdi vi s i on cannotbe m ade w i th re as onabl e di l i gence , by l eavi ng a copy of the s um m ons and compl ai ntatthe def endant ' s us ual pl ace of abod e w i th the def enda nt ' s s po us e o rs ome othe rp e r s on o f the d e f e nd a nt ' s f

a mi l y a bo ve t he age of s i xt een year s w ho i s w i l l i ng t o r ece i ve s ervi ce, and by ther eaf t erm ai l i ng a c o p y o f th e s u m m o n s a n d c o m p lain t (b y first c las s m a il, p o sta g e p re p a id ) to the per s on t o be s erved atthe pl ace w her e a c opy of the s um m ons and of

the c o m p lain t w e re lef

t. S e rv ice o f a s u m m o n s in this m a n n e r is d e e m e d c o m p lete on the 10th day af

t ers uch mai l i ng.

### 10

See a l so W il liam s v. K

il go re , 618 So. 2d 51, 56 (M i s s . 1992) ( f i ndi ng i ns uf

f i ci ents ervi ce of pr oces s w her e def

endant ’ s s um m ons w as l ef tathi s r es i dence w i th hi s s pous e, butnever
m a iled to th e re sid e n c e w h e re p ro c e ss w a s d e liv e re d ). H a v in g fo u n d th a t th e trial c o u rt d id noterri n f

i ndi ng i ns uf

f i ci ency of

pr oces s and i ns uf

f i ci ency of

s ervi ce of

pr oces s , w e now proceed t o o ur di scussi on as t o w hetherD efendan t s w ai ved these de fenses
. I I . W HET HER DE F EN DANT S ’ 2 0 0 4 RE S P ONS E TO OR I GI NAL CO M P L AI NT S E RV E D A S A WAI VE R T O T HE DE F E N S E S OF I NS UF F I CI E NC Y O F P RO CE S S AN D I NS UF F I CI E NC Y O F SER V I C E O F PR O C ESS. ¶14. T he Pl ai nt i f

f s argue al t ernat i vel y that , s houl d thi s C ourt f i nd pr oces s def

i ci ent , the D ef endant s have w ai ved the def ens es of i ns uf f i ci ency of

pr oces s and i ns uf

f i ci ency of

s ervi ce of pr oc e s s . The i s s ue be f or e us i s e s s e nt i a l l y whethe rthe do c umen tW i l l i a m K i dd dr a f t ed and s erved on Pl ai nt i f

f s ’ f orm ercouns el w as a val i d answ erdes pi t e havi ng notbeen f i l ed
w i th the tr i al c ourt . Pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 5( d) , “A l l paper s af t er the c o m p lai n t r eq u ir ed to b e se rve d u p o n a p arty sh all b e filed w ith the c o u rteith er b efo re
se rv ice o r w ith in a re a so n a b le tim e the re a fte r. . . . ” W ith o u t qu e stio n , a v a lida n sw e r w o u ld have e f f ect i vel y served t o barthe D ef endant s f r om as s ert i ng i ns uf

f i ci ency of

pr oces s and in s u ff ic ie n c y o f s e rv ic e o f p ro c e s s d e fe n s e s . See M iss. R
. C iv. P. 12 (h)(1 ). ¶15. I n the thr ee cons ol i dat ed cas es , W i l l i am K i dd r es ponded pr o s e t o Pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el on behal f of hi m s el f , L i m eco, and B r ettand J ami e. H i s r es pons e di d notas s ertthe def ens es
o f in su ffic ien c y o f p ro c e ss o r in su ffic ien c y o f se rv ice o f p ro c e ss p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i R u le
o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )(4 )-(5 ), n o r d id h e a m e n d h is re sp o n se w ith in th e r e q u isite th irty days as r equi r ed by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 15( a) t o i ncl ude thes e def ens es . T he

### 11

Pl ai nt i f f s cont end thatthi s r es pons e cons t i tut ed a va l i d ans w erand s erved as a barf orr ai s i ng 12b( 4)
- ( 5) def

ens es . Fur therm or e, the Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue thatt he agr eed- upon orde rt o s etas i de the def aul tj udgm entdi d notgra ntt he K i dds an oppor tuni ty pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 15( a) t o amend t hei ri ni t i al ans w ert o i ncl ude thes e def ens es . T hi s C our thas
neveraddr es s ed the i s s ue of w hetherthe f

ai l ur e t o f

i l e a doc um entr ender s s uch document in v a lid ; h o w e v e r, th is iss u e h a s b e e n a d d re ss e d a t th e fe d e ra l lev e l. ¶16. T he D ef

endant s ci t e tw o cas es i n s upport of thei r cont ent i on that the fi rs tres po nse W i l l i am K i dd dr af

t ed and s erved t o oppos i ng c ouns el w as i nval i d. I n S a u lsb e rr y v. A tla n tic R ichf ield Co. , 6 7 3 F
. S u p p . 8 1 1 , 8 1 4 (N
. D
. M iss. 1 9 8 7 ), the c o u rth eld th at an att o rne y ’s
re sp o n se to th e d e fe n d a n t’s re q u e st fo r a d m iss io n w a s in v a lidb e c a u se it w a s n o t p ro p e rly fil ed w ith th e co u rtpu rsua n t to F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 5(d ), w h ich – j u st li k e its M i s s i s s i ppi count erpart– r equi r es al l document s fol l ow i ng t he compl ai ntt o be f i l ed w i th the
court . Feder al D i s tr i ctC ou rtU ni f orm L ocalR ul e 6( e) m akes an exc ept i on onl y f or d e p o s itio n s , b u t a ll o th e r d o c u m e n ts m u s t b e f ile d w ith th e c o u rt . Id
. T he courthe l d thatthe
s ta te m e n ts m u s t b e d e e m e d a d m itte d b e c a u s e th e re s p o n s e w a s in e ff e c tiv e . Id
. T his w as al so the i nt erpr et at i on by the Southern D i s tr i ctcourti n McLau r in v. W erner , 909 F. Supp. 447 (S
. D
. M iss. 1 9 9 5 ), in w h ich M cL au ri n ' s u n fi led re sp o n se m ail ed to the o p p o sing p arty’s
a tto rn e y w a s h e ldto b e in e ffe c tiv e . T h e fe d e ra l d istric t c o u rts’ in terp re tatio n o f F e d e ra l R u le
o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 (d ) is h ig h ly p e rsu a siv e , g iv e n th a t th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , w ith fe w e x c e p tio n s, w e re d e v e lo p e d to c o m p o rt w ith th e F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e.

### 12

¶1 7. T he d i s s e ntd i s t i ng ui s he s the s e f e de r a l c a s es bas ed on the f actt hatt hos e cas es i nvol ved pl eadi ngs notf i l ed due t o the att orneys ’ err ororw i l l f ul dis regar d f

orpr ocedur e. T h e re a so n fo r n o t fili n g , h o w e v e r, sh o u ld n o t be d e ter m in a tiv e o f w h e th e r a p lea d in g is v a lid
ori nval i d. T he factthata pl eadi ng i s notf i l ed s houl d m ean–a s a mat t erof bl ackl ett er l aw –t ha tthe p l e a di ng i s p e rs e i nv a l i d. W hi l e thi s Courth a s g i ve n a v e ry br oad interpre tat ion o f a w h at co n sti tutes an an sw er pu rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 8( b) , i thas neverhel d thatan ans w erthathas notbeen f i l ed w as val i d. I n W

h e a t v. E a k in , 49 1 S o. 2 d 52 3 ( M i s s . 1986) , W heat , act i ng pr o s e, f i l ed w i th the ci r cui tcl erk' s of f i ce a handw r i t t en documentthatbeca m e the poi ntof cont ent i on i n the ca s e – s peci f i cal l y w hether th e d o c u m e n t c o n s titu te d a n a n s w e r. Id
. at524. I n W heat , thi s C our thel d that“[ w ] hi l e the f orm and l anguage of

the appe l l ant ' s r es pons e ar e l es s than des i r abl e and mor e f r ank than cust om ary, the ap pell ant di d st at e i n sh o rtand plai n term s hi s general den i al of appe l l ees' cl ai m s . ” W

h e a t v. E a k in , 4 9 1 S o . 2 d 5 2 3 , 5 2 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ). N o tab ly , the les s-th a n -d e sira b le
r es pons e ati s s ue i n W

heat w as f i l ed w i th the ci r cui tcl erk’ s of f i ce. ¶18. I n H

ar r is on v. Mis s is s i

ppiB ar , 637 So. 2d 204 ( M i s s . 1994) , thi s Courtr evi ew ed a d efa u ltjud g m en t aga inst an att o rne y in a d isci p li n ary p roc ee d ing d u e to th e att o rne y ’s fail u re t o r es pond. H arr i s on cont ended thatherr es pons e t o the s um m ons and compl ai nt , i n l ett er f orm , cons t i tut ed an “ ans w er . ” Id
. at215. T hi s C ourt , how ever , di s m i s s ed thatcont ent i on bas ed on the f

ol l ow i ng: ( 1) i tw as noti n the f orm of an ans w er , ( 2) i tw as notf i l ed w i th the cl erk of the court , ( 3) a nd i tw as notf i l ed w i thi n the r equi s i t e tw enty- day per i od r equi r ed by M i s s i s s i ppi Rul e of

D i s ci pl i ne 8. 3. I

d . W hi l e the f

i l i ng r equi r ementr el i ed upon i n H ar r is on
w as p resc ri b ed b y R u le of D isci p li n e 8 .4 a n d n o t by M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re

### 13

5(d), the p rem i se i s the sam e. H arr i son’s answ er w as i nv al i d for the aforem enti on ed reasons. W i l l i am K i dd’ s re s pons e, w hi l e t aki ng t he f orm of an ans w er , w as neverfi l ed w i th t he cl erk. I tw as n everf

i l ed bec aus e W i l l i am’s def i ci entand i nef

f ect i ve pr oces s i ns truct ed hi m that

“ [y ]ou a re n o t re q u ire d to file a n a n sw e r o r o th e r p lea d in g .” In th e e n d , the P lain tiffs s im p ly cannotcapi t al i ze on thei row n f ol l y as t o the err oneous l anguage thati nst ruct ed W i l l i am K idd h e w as n o t r eq u ir ed to fi le an an sw er. ¶19. T he Pl ai nt i f

f s ar gue that W i l l i am K i dd’ s r es pons e on February 20, 2004, cons t i tut es
a n a pp e a r a nc e i n e a c h c a s e . They r el y on K ing v. Si grest , 64 1 S o. 2d 11 58 , 11 62 (M i ss. 1994) , f orthe pr emi s e thatunderM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 55, even a n unf i l ed
m o tio n co n sti tutes an ap p ea ran ce ; th ere fore , ac co rdin g to the P lai n ti ffs, the D efe n d a n ts col l ect i vel y w ai ved thei rdef ens es f ol l ow i ng thi s i ni t i al appear ance a nd the s i gni f i cantdel ay th e re a fte r. T h e re is n o q u e s tio n th a t d e fa u lt j u d g m e n t in th is c a se w a s im p ro p e r, as b o th p arti es h av e c o n ce d ed this po int. F o r th e p u rpo ses o f M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 55, a party need onl y m ake " an i ndi ci a o f defe ns e ordeni al of the al l egat i ons of

the
c o m p la in t” to b e e n title d to th re e d a y s ’ n o tic e o f t h e a p p lic a tio n o f d e fa u lt ju d g m e n t. W heat
v. E a k in , 491 So. 2d 523, 525 (M i s s . 1986)
. W i l l i am K i dd’ s r es pons e may have metthe
r equi r ement s of

M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vil Pr ocedur e 55 t o r equi r e thr ee da ys ’ not i ce of ap p li ca ti o n for d efa u ltjud g m en t, b u t i t w as n o t a v ali d an sw er, be ca u se itd id n o t com p o rt
w ith the fil ing req u ir em en t of M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 5 (d). ¶2 0
. T h e P lai n ti ffs furth er a rgu e tha t an a p p ea ran ce co u p led w ith d elay se rve s as a w aive r. T h e d e lay is in sig n ifica n t b e c a u se th e d e fe n se s w e re n e ith e r r a ise d in a v a lida n sw e r, n o r d id the D ef endant s part i ci pat e i n the l aw s ui ton r ecor d unt i l Sept ember2006. T his C our thas

### 14

s t at ed, “[ a] def

endant ' s f

ai l ur e t o t i m el y a nd r eas onabl y r ai s e and pur s ue the enf or cementof
a n y a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se o r o th e r a ffirm a tiv e m a tter o r r ig h t w h ich w o u ld se rv e to ter m in a te
o r sta y th e lit ig a tio n , co u p led w ith a c tiv e p a rticip a tio n in th e lit ig a tio n p ro c e ss , w ill
or di nar i l y s erve as a w ai ver . ” E a s t Mis s . S ta te Ho s

p . v. A da ms , 9 47 S o. 2 d 88 7, 89 1 (M i ss. 2007) ( ci t i ng M

S Cr edit Ctr. , Inc. v. Horton , 926 So. 2d 167, 181 ( M i s s . 2006) )
. T he D efe n d an ts, h o w ev er, did n o t acti v ely p arti cipa te i n the law su it , n o r w ere they ev en aw are of the def aul tj ud gm ent unti l the Pl ai nt i f f s s oughtt o enf

or ce the j udgm enti n 2006 i n an A lab a m a c irc u it co u rt. It is u n c lea r f ro m th e re c o rd w h y th e P lain tiffs d e lay e d in se e k in g to
e n fo rc e th e ju d g m e n t fo r a lm o st tw o y e a rs . T h e D e fe n d a n ts, a fte r le a rn in g o f th e d e fa u lt j udgm ent s , f

i l ed thr ough couns el a M ot i on t o SetA s i de D ef aul tJ udgm entand F or O ther R el i ef i n eac h of the t hree cas es . T he D ef endant s r ai s ed, f

orthe f i r s tt i m e, the def

ens es of i ns uf f i ci ency of

pr oces s as t o the s um m ons s erved o n W i l l i am K i dd and i ns uf f i ci ency of
s ervi ce of

proc es s as t o Jami e and B r ettK i dd. Si nce the f i r s tre s pons e dr af

t ed and s erved by W i l l i am K i dd di d notcons t i tut e a va l i d ans w er , thes e def ens es w er e pr oper l y r ai s ed i n the S eptem ber 20, 2006 , pleadi ng – the f i rs tres po nse fi l ed o f r ecord b y the K i dd s. ¶21. B ecaus e w e have f ound the February 2004 pr o s e r es pons e by W i l l i am K i dd t o be an in v a lid a n sw e r, w e fin d it u n n e c e ss a ry to a d d re ss th e P lain tiff’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e D e fe n d a n ts im p rop erly a m en d ed the F eb rua ry 2 0 0 4 res p o n se u n d er M issi ssipp i R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 5
. T h e fi rstan sw er o f reco rd in D ec em b er 2 0 0 6 w as fil ed as a resu lto f th e a g ree d o rde rs
en tered b y the tri al co u rtsett ing asid e the d efa u ltjud g m en ts an d all o w ing the D efe n d an ts “thi r ty days f

r om thi s dat e i n w hi ch t o f i l e a r espon si ve pl eadi ng. ” Ther e i s no i ndi cat i on f r om the agr eed or der s thatthe D ef endant s w er e w ai vi ng any def ens es i n excha nge f

orthe

### 15

Pl ai nt i f f s agr eei ng t o setas i de the def aul tj udgm ent . T her ef

or e, the D ef

endant s w er e at lib e rt y to ra is e a n y a n d a ll d e fe n s e s a v a ila b le to th e m . Se e e .g ., He a r d v. R e my , 937 So. 2d 9 3 9 , 9 4 1 -4 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); R ains v G ar dner , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 4 -9 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); Y oung
v. Hur on Sm ith O il

Co. , I nc. , 564 So. 2d 36, 38- 39 ( M i s s . 1990)
. A ccor di ngl y, thi s i s s ue is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 2
. F o r a ll o f th e a fo re m e n tio n e d re a so n s, h a v in g fo u n d n o e rro r, th e L e e C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt’s e n try o f o rd e rs o f d ism iss a l w ith o u t p reju d ic e in th e se th re e c a se s p u rsu a n t to M i s s i s s i ppi C i vi l Pr ocedur e 4( h) i s af f i rm ed. ¶23. AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , DI CK I NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR. GR AVES, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O PI NI ON J OI NED BY DI AZ , P . J . , AN D E AS L E Y, J . L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . GR AV E S , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶2 4
. C o u rt s sh o u ld stri v e to re ac h e q u it ab le resu lt s w h en a d jud icati n g the d ispu tes b efo re them. I ti s a dm i tt edl y di f f i cul tt o a chi eve an equi t abl e r es ul ti n thi s cas e, gi ven the l i t i gat i on
err or s com m i tt ed by bot h si des , as w el l as the pas s age of t i m e s i nce the i ncept i on of thi s cas e. ¶ 2 5
. I w rite se p a ra te ly to stre ss th e fa c t th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts a re b y n o m e a n s b lam e les s in al l ow i ng thi s l aw s ui tt o degene r at e t o i t s curr ents t at e. W i l l i am K i dd t es t i f i ed ata depos i t i on i n thi s case an d st at ed that , atthatt i m e, he w as the managi ng di r ect orof a corpor at e ent i ty, thathe ow ned s ever al other s , and thathe had hi r ed couns el on pr i orocca s i ons t o r epr es ent thes e ent i t i es i n otherl egal m att er s . A tthi s depos i t i on, t he f ol l ow i ng l i ne of

quest i oni ng t ook pl ace :

### 16

Q : M r . K i dd, how m any compani es do you ow n or ar e you i nvol ved w i th? A : I ’ m notr eal l y s ur e. I w oul d s ay more than f i ve. Q : T hat ’ s adequa t e. H ave a ny of thes e ent i t i es everbeen s ued? A : Y es. Q : D i d y ou use at t orneys i n those cases? A : Y es. Q : W hy did you use at t orneys i n those cases? A: I g u e s s s o th a tI wo u l d n ’ th a v e th i s p r o b l e m. Q : W h a t p ro b lem is th a t? A : G ett i ng i nt o an ar ea thatI w as n’ tf ami l i arw i th. K id d also stat ed at h is d ep o sit ion th at th e rea so n he i n it ial ly ch o se n o t h ir e an a tto rn e y to
r epr es e nth i m, Li mec o, o rh i s c hi l dr e n w a s b e c a us e “ I d i dn ’ tthi nki twas tha ts e r i ou s r i ght th e n .” ¶2 6. So K i dd chos e t o r e s po nd t o the c ompl a i nt on hi s own. The r e s ul t w a s a tw o- page
an s w e r , the b od y of

whi c h c on s i s t e d of

f i ve n umbe r e d pa r a gr a ph s . Eac h pa r a gr a ph s t at i ng onl y ei ther“A gr ee, ” “D eny, ” or“D o notadmi tordeny. ” H e then s t at ed i n cl os i ng that“the D efe n d an t( s) j o intl y an d s e v e ra ll y d en ies [ sic] v ali d ity an d o v era ll su b stan ce o f P lai n ti ff’ s cl ai m and as k thatthe Sum m ons and C om pl ai ntbe di s m i s s ed. ” A thi s dep os i t i on, K i dd d e sc rib e d h is th o u g h t p ro c e ss re g a rd in g h is re sp o n se to th e c o m p lain t: A : I j ustfol l ow ed w hat the C om plai nt sai d. Itsai d that I had t o an sw er, so I ans w er ed. T hatw as i t . So I thoughtdoi ng the A ns w er , – Q : So by se rvi ng – A : – itprot ect ed m y ri gh t s. Q : – by pr epar i ng and servi ng the A ns w eron oppos i ng couns el , you tho ug ht you h ad p res erved all yo ur r i gh t s? A : T h a t’s rig h t. ¶27. T hi s C ourthol ds pr o s e l i t i gan t s t o subst anti al l y t he sam e st andar ds of l i t i gat i on
c o n d u c t a s a tto rn e y s . Perr y v. An dy , 8 58 S o. 2 d 143, 146 ( M i s s . 2003)
. I n thi s cas e, K i dd
m a d e a c o n sc io u s, in fo rm e d d e c isio n n o t to h ire a n a tto rn e y w h e n h e d isc o v e re d tha t he , h is

### 17

company, and hi s chi l dr en w er e bei ng s ued. H e dec i ded thathe coul d re pr es enthi s ri ght s and thos e of hi s com pany and chi l dr en on hi s ow n. I tw as notunt i l he w as not i f i ed of the f or ei gn j udgm entagai ns thi m i n A l abama thathe dec i ded thath e nee ded t o hi r e couns el beca us e, appar ent l y, i thad bec om e “thats er i ous . ” C ert ai nl y, K i dd w as s avvy enough to know that sign if ican t cl aim s w ere b eing m ad e a g ains t his co rpo rate interests. Y et, the m ajority ap p ea rs t o be cr eat i ng a new s t andar d of r evi ew f orpr o s e l i t i gant s , unl es s i tw oul d al s o f i nd thatan att orney w ho act ed i n the s ame m anneras K i dd had notw ai ved the def ens es of i ns uf f i ci ent
service and insuf

fi ci ent s ervi ce of process. ¶2 8. I al s o w r i t e se par at el y t o n ot e tha tthe maj or i ty’ s de c i s i on t od a y h a s the ef f ect of puni s hi ng the pl ai nt i f

f s f orl i t i gat i on e rr or s comm i t t ed by thei rcouns el
. B oth the w or di ng of th e s u m m o n se s a n d th e m isre p re se n tatio n m a d e to th e c o u rt th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts h a d fa iled to
r es pond t o the compl ai nt s w er e cl ear l y m i s t akes m ade by couns el
. B eca us e of t he mi s t akes of att orneys , the pl ai nt i f

f s have now l os tthe r i ghtt o pur s ue thei rcaus e of act i on. W hi l e the plai nti ff s ar e being p un i shed for att orney e rr or, the d efendan t s r eap a be nefi tfr om the carel ess
a n d c a v a lier d e c isio n o f W ill iam K id d to p ro c e e d p ro se . T h e re su lt rea c h e d b y th e m a jo rity is a n in e q u itab le o n e , an d , the re fo re , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. DI AZ , P . J . , AND E AS LE Y, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.