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 9 - I A- 0 1 6 1 7 - S CT KI M BAL L GL AS

S CO RES

I DENTI AL C ENTER , I NC . AN D V ERA R ICHA RD S ON
v. T ER RA N C

E S H A N K SA SN E X T O F K IN O F L OIS S HANKS
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 15/ 2009 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . A L B E R T B . S M IT H , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: BOLI VAR COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANTS : W ADE G. M ANO R J AM I E L EI GH H EARD AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : E L L I S T UR NAGE NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - TORT S - OTHER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 06/ 09/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T e rra n c e S h a n k s filed this p e rs o n a l- in ju ry a c tio n o n b e h a lf

o f h is m o th e r, L o is Shanks , agai ns tK i m bal l G l as s co R es i dent i al C ent er , I nc. and V er a R i char ds on. Shanks
a lleg e d th a t L o is w a s in ju re d w h e n R ic h a rd so n lo st c o n tro l o f a v a n sh e w a s d riv in g , in
w hi ch Loi s w as a pas senger. R i char ds on f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s , as s ert i ng thats he w as empl oyed by D el t a C om m uni ty M ent al H eal th Ser vi ce ( D C M H S) , notK i m bal l G l as s co, and that the acti on w as barred by the on e-year st atute of l i m i t at i on s un der the M i ssi ssi pp i T o rt C lai m s A ct (M T C A ). M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -1 1 (3 ) ( R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). K im b all G lassco ’s

### 2

ans w eras s ert ed thatK i m bal l G l as s co i s a s t at e ent i ty ent i t l ed t o the pr ot ect i ons of the M T C A
. ¶2. A tthe hea r i ng on the mot i on t o di s m i s s , K i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on ar gued that S h a n k s’s a c tio n w a s tim e -b a rr e d u n d e r th e M T C A . T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n to di s m i s s , hol di ng thatthe def endant s had w ai ved the i rs t a tut e - of
- l i mi t at i ons def

ens e by f ai l i ng t o t i m el y ra i s e and pur s ue the def ens e w hi l e act i vel y par t i ci pat i ng i n t he l i t i gat i on. T he tr i al
courthel d al t ernat i vel y thatthe def endant s w er e es t opped f r om ass ert i ng t he M T C A ’ s oney ea r st atute o f l im it ati o n s b ase d o n a m isr ep rese n tat ion by th e M issi ssipp i T o rtC lai m s B o ard ( M T C B ) t hatD C M H S w as nota s t at e ent i ty. T hi s C our thas gr ant ed the def endant s ’ pet i t i on f oran i nt er l ocut ory appea l
. Becaus e the def endant s di d notw ai ve thei rs t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons def ens e, and K i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on w er e notequi t ably est opped by the
m is re p re s e n ta tio n o f t h e M T C B , w e re v e rs e a n d re n d e r t h e d e c is io n o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt . FACTS ¶ 3
. S h a n k s file d th e in sta n t law su it o n A p ril 8 , 2 0 0 8 , alle g in g th a t, on A p ril 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , L o is had bee n a pas s engeri n an aut om obi l e ow ned by K i m bal l G l as s co and dr i ven by R i char ds on. Shanks cl ai m ed thatL oi s had bee n i nj ur ed w hen R i char ds on negl i gent l y f ai l ed t o keep a pr operl ookoutand l os tcontr ol of the aut om obi l e. Shanks al l eged t hatR i char ds on w as empl oyed by K i m bal l G l ass co, and thatK i m bal l G l as s co w as vi car i ous l y l i abl e f or R i char ds on’ s negl i gence beca us e the ac ci denthad occ urr ed i n the cour s e and s cope of R ic h a rd s o n ’s e m p lo y m e n t. ¶4. R i char ds on f

i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s , al l egi ng thats he w as empl oyed by D C M H S and th a t , b e c a u s e DC M HS i s a s t a t e e n t i ty , s h e i s e n t i t l e d t o th e p r o t e c t i o n s o f th e M T CA
.T he pow er s and dut i es of the M T C B ar e codi f

i ed atM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 1 1 9 (S u p p . 2 0 1 0 ). T h e s e p o w e rs a n d d u tie s in c lu d e , in tera lia , o v e r s e e i n g t h e To r tCl a i ms Fund, a s s i gn i ng l i t i ga t e d c l a i ms t o a t t orne ys w he r e ne c e s s a ry, a nd pu r c ha s i ng i ns ur a nce p o lic ie s fo r t h e p ro te c tio n o f t h e S ta te . I d. 

### 3 R i char ds on admi t t ed thatShanks had gi ven a no t i ce of cl ai m t o D C H M S as r equi r ed by M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11-46- 11( 3)
. H ow ever , s he al l eged thatShanks ’ s l aw s ui tw as t i m eb a rr e d b y th e M T C A ’ s o n e -y e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 11( 3) ( R ev. 2002)
. I n i t s a ns w er , K i m bal l G l as s co averr ed thati ti s a corpor at i on cr eat ed underthe l aw s of the S t at e o f M i s s i s s i ppi by the boar d of D C M H S. O n thatbas i s , K i m bal l G l as s co
as s er t ed t hati ti s a s t a t e e nt i ty c ov e r e d b y the M TC A
. K i mbal l G l a s s c o a l s o a ve rr e d that R ic h a rd s o n h a d b e e n e m p lo y e d b y D C M H S , n o t K im b a ll G la s s c o . ¶ 5 . S h a n k s filed a re sp o n se d isp u tin g th e a p p lica b ili ty o f th e M T C A a n d a lleg in g th a t, i n the J ul y 28, 2006, l ett er , the defendant s and the M T C B had made m i s r epr es ent at i ons that 1 detr i m ent al l y ha d i nduced Shanks t o f i l e s ui tout s i de the M T C A ’ s l i m i t at i on s peri od. Th e r e f o r e , S h a n k s a r g u e d , th e d e f e n d a n t s we r e e q u i t a b l y e s t o p p e d f r o m r e l y i n g o n th e M TCA
s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons as an af

f i r m at i ve def

ens e. Shanks al s o ar gued thatthe s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w as t ol l ed by the def endant s ’ f

r audul entconce al m ent . T he s ame day, Shanks f i l ed
a mo t i o n f

o rl e a v e t o a me n d th e c o mp l a i n tt o a d d t h e M TCB a s a d e f e n d a n ta n d a d d c l a i ms f orconce al m ent , equi t abl e and j udi ci al es t oppel , w ai ver , de tr i ment a l r e l i a nc e , a nddepr i vat i on
o f n o tic e a n d d u e p ro c e s s o f l a w . ¶6. I n s uppor tof

t he equi t abl e- es t oppel ar gum ent , S hanks at t ache d t o the mot i on t o amend a l ett erf r om B ruce D onal ds on of the M T C B t o Shanks ’ s couns el , dat ed J ul y 28 , 2 006. T he l ett eracknow l edged thatShanks had gi ven a not i ce of c l ai m t o D C M H S and the M i s s i s s i ppiS h a n k s fi le d th e n o tic e o f c la im o n A p ri l 4 , 2 0 0 6
. 2 

### 4 D epart m entof

M ent al H eal th. T he l ett ers t at ed t hatthe M T C B had bee n advi s ed by the 2 M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof M ent al H eal th thatD C M H S w as nota s t at e age ncy ora depa r t m ent
o r div isi o n o f th e M issi ssipp i D ep artm en t of M en tal H ea lth
. S h an k s all eg ed that the M T C B ’s
m i s r epr es ent at i on had i nduced hi m t o f i l e s ui tout s i de the one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons
a p p lic a b le to a s ta te e n tity u n d e r t h e M T C A
. ¶7. O n J une 8, 2009, K i m bal l G l as s co and R i char ds on fi l ed a not i ce of hear i ng of

the M ot i on t o D i s m i s s . T he hea r i ng occurr ed on A ugus t19, 2009. O n the day of the hea r i ng, Shanks f

i l ed
a s uppl ement al r es pons e, cl ai m i ng thatthe def endant s had w ai ved thei r af fi r m at i ve def

ens es underthe M T C A by f

ai l i ng t o s eek a t i m el y he ar i ng. T he tr i al c our the l d thatK i m bal l G l as s co and R i char ds on had w ai ved t hei rM T C A def ens es beca us e they had f ai l ed t i m el y and
r eas onabl y t o r ai s e and pur s ue enf or cementof

thos e def

ens es w hi l e ac t i vel y part i ci pat i ng i n the li ti g ati o n . A lt ern ati v ely, th e tri al co u rtfou n d that K im b all G lassco a n d R ich a rdso n w ere equi t abl y es t opped f

r om pur s ui ng thei rM T C A de f ens es ba s ed on the l ett erf r om the M T C B that
s ta te d D C M H S w a s n o t a s ta te e n tity
. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶8
. T h is C o u rt a p p lies d e n o v o rev iew to the g ran t or d en ial o f a m o ti o n to d ism iss or a
m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. P rice v. Clark , 2 1 S o . 3 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 ). DI S CU S S I ON I. W H E T H E R T H E T R IA L C O U R T E R R E D IN D E N Y IN G S H A N K S ’S M O T IO N T O D IS M IS S
. A
. W ai ver

### 5

¶ 9
. T h e M T C A p ro v id e s th e e x c lu siv e c iv il re m e d y a g a in st a g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity a n d its
e mp l o y e e s . M i s s . Co d e An n . § 1 1
- 4 6
- 7 ( 1 ) ( Re v . 2 0 0 2 )
. Al l a c t i o n s b r o u g h tu n d e rt h e M TCA
a r e s u b j e c tt o a o n e - y e a rs t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s , wh i c h i s t o l l e d b y a t i me l y - f i l e d n o t i c e o f

c l a i m. M i ss. C od e A nn . § 1 1-46-11 (3) (R ev. 2 00 2). A p arty i nst i gati ng a clai m un der the M T C A m ust f i l e a not i ce of

cl ai m w i th the chi ef

exec ut i ve of

f i cerof the g ov ernm ental ent i ty ni nety days b e fo re m a in ta in in g a n a c tio n . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 1 (1 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶10. A governm ent al ent i ty i ncl udes t he St at e and i t s pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i ons . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 1( g) ( R ev. 2 00 2). T he “St at e” i ncl udes “the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi and any of f i ce, depart m ent , agenc y, di vi s i on, bur eau, comm i s s i on, boar d, i nst i tut i on, hos pi t al , col l ege, uni ver s i ty, ai rpor tauthor i ty, or otheri ns trum ent al i ty t her eof , . . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11-46- 1( j ) ( R ev. 2 002)
. T he def i ni t i on of

“pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on” enc om pas s es “any c ounty,
m u n icip a lity , sc h o o l d istric t, co m m u n ity h o sp ital . . . a irp o rt a u th o rity o r o th e r in stru m e n tality ther eof
. . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 1( i ) ( R ev. 2002)
. A ny cl ai m agai ns tan empl oyee of a governm ent al ent i ty f oract s ar i s i ng outof hi s orherempl oym entm us tbe br oughtpur s uant to th e M T C A
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -7 (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). In Cit y of H att iesbu rg v. R egion X

II Com m is s on on Mental

Heal th and R etar dation , 6 5 4 S o . 2 d 5 1 6 , 5 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ), this C o u rt h e ld th a t a re g io n a l m e n ta l- h e a lth c o m m is s io n is a s ta te a g e n c y . ¶11. K i m bal l G l as s co and R i chardson asser tthatthey a re ent i t l ed t o the pr i vi l eges and i m m uni t i es of

the M T C A
. T he tr i al courti m pl i ci t l y hel d thatK i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on
w ere co v ere d b y the M T C A b y h o lding that they h ad w aive d their M T C A d efe n ses o r w ere
es t opped f

r om as s ert i ng them. O n appea l , Shanks does notdi s put e thatK i m bal l G l as s co and R ich a rd so n a re c o v e re d b y th e M T C A . R a th e r, S h a n k s a rg u e s th a t, as fo u n d b y th e tria l co u rt,A l though copi es of thi s corr es pondence ar e i ncl uded i n K i m bal l G l ass co’ s and 3 R icha rdso n ’s reco rd ex ce rpts, this c o rresp o n d en ce w as n o t m ad e a p art of the o ffi cial reco rd in this ca se. T h is co rresp o n d en ce a n d o ther ex tr a-rec o rd d o cu m en ts i n clud ed in the rec o rd exce rpt s ar e the s ubj ectof a mot i on t o di s m i s s f

i l ed by Shanks
. “‘ [ T ] hi s C our tw i l l not 

### 6 K i m bal l G l as s c o a ndRi c ha r ds on ei therw ai ved thei rM T C A def ens es , orthey ar e es t opped f r om
a s s e rt in g th e m b y th e M T C B le tte r. ¶12. K i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on ar gue thatthe tr i al c our terr ed by f i ndi ng thatthey had
w ai ved thei raf

f i r m at i ve def

ens es by f

ai l i ng t o t i m el y and r eas onabl y pur s ue thos e def ens es
w h il e a cti v ely p arti cipa ti n g in the li ti g ati o n . T h is C o u rth as h eld th at “ [a] d efe n d an t' s fail u re t o t i m el y and r eas onabl y r ai s e and pur s ue the enf or cementof

any af f i r m at i ve def

ens e orother
a ffirm a tiv e m a tter o r rig 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 , c o u p led w ith act i ve part i ci pat i on i n the l i t i gat i on pr oces s , w i l l or di nar i l y s erve as a w ai ver . ” M SCr e dit Ctr., I nc. , v. Hor ton , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 6 7 , 1 8 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). T o p u rsu e a n a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se m e a n s “ to pl ead i t , br i ng i tt o the court ’ s att ent i on, and r equesta hear i ng. ” E s tate of G r im es v. W ar r ington , 982 So. 2d 365 , 3 70 (M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng Hor ton , 92 6 S o. 2d at18 1). B ecause M T C A im m u n ity is c o n s id e re d to b e a n a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se , this C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t a g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tity ’s im m u n ity u n d e r t h e M T C A is s u b je c t to w a iv e r. I

d. ¶13. I n hi s br i ef

, Shanks m akes s ever al admi s s i ons thatboth K i m bal l G l as s co and R i char ds on
ra ise d th e ir M T C A d e fe n se s o n M a y 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 . N o th in g fu rth e r tra n sp ire d in th e c a se u n til A p ril 6, 2009 , w hen Shanks not i ced the s ervi ce of di s covery on the def endant s , i ncl udi ng i nt err ogat or i es , r eques t s f orpr oduct i on of

doc um ent s , a nd r eques t s f ora dm i s s i ons . O n M ay 14
an d M ay 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 , the d efe n d an ts serve d d isco v ery resp o n ses o n S h an k s. T h e tri al co u rt ’s order r eci t es corres po nd ence betw een the part i es con cerni ng the m oti on to di sm i ss as fol l ow s: 3c o n sid e r m a tters w h ich d o n o t a p p e a r in th e re c o rd a n d m u st c o n fin e itse lf to w h a t ac tu a lly

do e s a pp e a ri n the r e c or d. ’ ” R u s h in gv. S ta te , 711 So. 2d 450, 454 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng Me din a v. S ta te , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 )). If a p a rty b e liev e s th a t t h e a p p e llate r ecor d cont ai ns err or s or om i s s i ons , t he pr operproc edur e f or“C orr ect i on orM odi f i cat i on of th e R e c o rd ” is o u tlin e d in M is s is s ip p i R u le o f A p p e lla te P ro c e d u re 1 0 (e ). See M . R. A
. P. 10 (e)
. T his C ou rtw i l l no tcon si der the ex tra- recor d m at eri al s f i l ed w i th the r ecord ex cerpt s, and Shanks ’ s m ot i on t o s tr i ke thes e mat er i al s i s gr ant ed. H ow ever , i ti s appar ent f rom the trial c o u rt’s o rd e r th a t th e c o rre sp o n d e n c e w a s c o n sid e re d b y th e trial c o u rt in m a k in g its rul i ng. B eca us e thi s orde ri s a par tof the of f i ci al re cor d, w e ar e abl e t o r el y on i t s di s cus s i on o f t h e c o rr e s p o n d e n c e in d e te rm in in g th e is s u e s o n a p p e a l. 

### 7 C orr es pondence dat ed J une 27, 2008 f r om def ens e couns el t o couns el f or the Pl ai nt i f

f r eaf f i r m ed the D efenda nt ’ s as s ert i on of the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons def ens e. O n J anuary 13, 2009, counse l fort he D ef endant s agai ns t[ s i c] as s ert ed the s ame posi t i on and i nf orm ed Pl ai nt i f

f’ s couns el of hi s i nt entt o setthe mot i on forheari ng . O n A pri l 8, 200 9, avai l able heari ng dates w ere pr ov i ded by defense co u n sel t o co u n sel for th e P lai n ti ff. A ft er re ce iving n o resp o n se fro m P lai n ti ff’ s couns el , on M ay 12, 2009, counse l fort he D ef endantagai n r eques t ed dat es that Pl ai nt i f f’ s c ou ns e l c ou l d b e made a va i l a bl e f orhe a r i ng . O n M a y 2 1, 20 09, Pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el r es ponded by r eques t i ng addi t i onal dat es f orthe f ol l ow i ng m onth. Fi nall y, on J une 4, 2009, couns el f orboth part i es agr eed on a hear i ng dat e. O n J une 8, 2009, D ef endant s f orm al l y not i ced thei rM ot i on t o D i s m i s s f or h e a rin g . O n A u g u st 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 , a h e a rin g w a s h e ld o n D e fe n d a n ts’ M o tio n to D i sm i ss. ¶14. T hus , af

t er the def

endant s had as s ert ed thei r s t atut e- of
- l i m i t at i ons def

ens e, the cas e l ay dor m anton the docke tf orappr oxi m at el y el even mont hs , f r om M ay 12, 2008, unt i l A pr i l 6, 2009. D ur i ng thi s dorm ancy p eri od, on J anuary 13, 2009, K i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on
as s ert ed thei rs t atut e- of

- l i m i t at i ons def

ens e i n corr es pondence t o S hanks
. A ppr oxi m at el y thr ee
m o n ths later, o n A p ri l 6, 20 0 9 , S h an k s serv ed d isco v ery o n the d efe n d an ts. T w o d ay s lat er, K i m ball G l assco and R i chardson p rop o sed av ai l able heari ng dates forthe m oti on t o d i sm i ss. W hen they r ece i ved no re s pons e f r om S hanks , t hey agai n re ques t ed pr opos ed hear i ng dat es on M a y 1 2 , 2 0 0 9
. T h e y r e s p o n d e d t o Sh a n k s ’ s d i s c o v e ry r e q u e s t s o n M a y 1 4 a n d M a y 2 2
. On M ay 2 1, 20 09 , S han ks res po nd ed w i th p roposed heari ng dat es. O n June 4, 20 09 , bo th p art i es’

### 8

cou nsel agreed to a heari ng date. K i m ball G l assco no t i ced the heari ng on the m oti on t o d i sm i ss
o n J u n e 8 , 2 0 0 9 , a n d it o c c u rr e d o n A u g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 0 9
. ¶15. I n Hor ton , the def endant s ass ert ed thei rri ghtt o arbi tr at i on i n thei rans w er , butthen they part i ci pat ed i n the l i t i gat i on by co nsenti ng t o a s chedul i ng or der , engagi ng i n di s covery, and ta k in g a d e p o s itio n . Hor ton , 926 So. 2d at180. A f t erei ghtmont hs of

s ubs t ant i al part i ci pat i on in th e litig a tio n , th e y fi le d a m o tio n to c o m p e l a rb itr a tio n . I d. T hi s C our thel d thatthe def endant s had w ai ved thei rr i ghtt o compel arbi tr at i on by s ubs t ant i al l y part i ci pat i ng i n the litig a tio n f

o r e ig h t m o n th s . I

d. at181. T he C our thel d thatthe det erm i nat i on of w hethera del ay i n pur s ui ng an af

f i r m at i ve def

ens e i s unre as onabl e i s subj ectt o a cas e- by- cas e ana l ys i s , and that
n o m in im u m n u m b e r o f d a y s w o u ld c o n s titu te a n u n re a s o n a b le d e la y i n e v e r y c a s e . I d. T he C o u rt sta ted th a t: [ O ] r di nar i l y, nei therdel ay i n pur s ui ng the r i gh tt o compel arbi tr at i on nor part i ci pat i on i n t he j udi ci al pr oces s , s t andi ng al one, w i l l cons t i tut e a w ai ver . T hat i s t o s ay, a part y w ho i nvokes the r i ghtt o compel arbi tr at i on and pur s ues that r i ghtw i l l notor di nar i l y w ai ve the r i ghts i m pl y beca us e of i nvol veme nti n the l i t i gat i on proc es s , and a par ty w ho see ks t o compel arbi tr at i on af t era l ong del ay w i l l notor di na r i l y be f ou nd t o ha ve wai ve d the r i gh twher e the r e h a s b e en no part i ci pati on i n, or adva ncem ent of , the li t i gati on process. I d. at180. H ow ever , the C our ts t at ed that“[ w ] e do hol d .
. . that– abs entextr eme and unus ual ci r cumst ance s – an ei ghtmont h unj us t i f i ed del ay i n the as s ert i on and pur s ui tof any af f i r m at i ve def ens e orotherr i ghtw hi ch, i f t i m el y pur s ued, coul d s erve t o t erm i nat e the l i t i gat i on, coupl ed
w i th act i ve part i ci pat i on i n the l i t i gat i on pr oces s , cons t i tut es w ai veras a mat t erof l aw . ” I d. at 181. ¶16
. S h an k s ad m it s tha t K i m ball G l assco and R i ch ard so n ti m ely ra ised the statu te-ofl i m i t at i on s defense on M ay 1 2, 20 08
. T he tr i al cou rtfound that the y h ad w ai ved the d efense

### 9

b y fa ili n g to p u rsu e itb y ti m e ly n o ticin g a h e a rin g o n the m o tio n to d ism iss
. T h e re c o rd re v e a ls an appr oxi m at el y el even- m onth del ay dur i ng w hi ch nothi ng occurr ed of re cor d i n the ca s e. D u ri n g this t im e, K im b all G lassco an d R icha rdso n req u e ste d th a t S h an k s p rop o se d ates fo r a hear i ng on the mot i on t o di s m i s s . A ct i vi ty of r ecor d re s um ed on A pr i l 6, 2009, w hen Shanks
s erved di s covery r eques t s on the def endant s . A tthatpoi nt , the def endant s pr om pt l y r eques t ed thatShanks pr opos e hear i ng da t es . U pon r ece i vi ng no r es pons e t o tw o r eques t s f orpr opos ed hear i ng dat es , the def

endant s r es ponded t o the di s covery re ques t s a fe w days af t ert he thi r ty- day d e a d lin e fo r d is c o v e ry re s p o n s e s h a d p a s s e d
. See M . R . C
. P. 33( b) ( 3) , 34( b) , 36. Fi nal l y, the p a rt ie s a g re e d o n a h e a ri n g d a te fo r t h e m o tio n to d is m is s . ¶ 1 7 . T h e fa c ts in th is c a se d o n o t in d ica te th a t K im b a ll G las sc o a n d R ich a rd so n w a iv e d th e ir M T C A de f

ens es . A l though ther e w as an appr oxi m at el y el even- m onth del ay i n the ca s e, dur i ng the del ay no party t ook any act i on t o advance t he l i t i gat i on. D ur i ng the del ay, K i m bal l G l as s co and R i char ds on pur s ued thei raf f i r m at i ve def

ens e by i nf

orm i ng S hanks of thei ri nt entt o s eek a hea r i ng on the mot i on t o di sm i ss. W hen Shanks r es um ed ac t i vi ty i n the ca s e by f i l i ng d i scovery, K i m ball G l assco and R i chardson i m m ediat el y resum ed thei r ef fortt o secu re pr opos ed hea r i ng da t es f orthe m ot i on t o di s m i s s . A l though K i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on
re sp o n d e d to th e d isc o v e ry re q u e sts , the y w e re re q u ire d to d o so b y th e R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e, and they s i m ul t aneous l y s oughtoppos i ng couns el ’ s agr eementon pr opos ed hea r i ng dat es on the mot i on t o di s m i s s . T he r ecor d show s t hatK i m bal l G l as s co and R i char ds on act ed
re a so n a b ly in p u rsu in g th e s tatu te- o f-lim itatio n s d e fe n se a n d th a t th e ir c o n d u c t d id n o t o p e ra te
as a w aive r. B
. E qui tabl e Estoppel

### 10

¶1 8
. T h e trial co u rt alt ern ati v ely fou n d that the M T C B ’s letter eq u it ab ly esto p p ed K im b a ll Gl a s s c o a n d Ri c h a r d s o n f r o m a s s e r t i n g th e i rM TCA d e f e n s e s . I n th e l e t t e r , th e M TCB i nf or m ed Shanks thati thad r ece i ved the not i ce of cl ai m w hi ch Shanks had di r ect ed t o the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof M ent al H eal th. T he M T C B s t at ed thatthe M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm ent of M ent al H eal th ha d a dvi s ed the M T C B thatD C M H S w as nota s t at e agenc y ora depa r tm ent
o r d iv isio n o f th e M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f M e n tal H e a lth . T h e M T C B sta ted th a t, fo r th is
r eas on, i tw as unabl e t o cons i derthe cl ai m . T he tr i al courthel d thatShanks detr i m ent al l y had
r el i ed upon thi s l ett eri n concl udi ng thatD C M H S w as nota governm ent al ent i ty cover ed by the M T C A , and i n w ai t i ng t o s ue K i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on unt i l af t erthe expi r at i on of

the
o n e -y e a r s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s u n d e r t h e M T C A
. ¶19. K i m bal l G l as s co and R i char ds on a r gue thatthe tr i al court ’ s rul i ng w as err orbeca us e the el ement s o f

e qu i t a bl e e s t op pe l wer e n otmet . Equi t a bl e e s t op pe l i s g e ne r a l l y de f i ne d a s “the pr i nci pl e by w hi ch a party i s pr ecl uded f r om de nyi ng a ny m at er i al f act , i nduced by hi s w or ds
orconductupon w hi ch a per s on re l i ed, w her eby the per s on change d hi s pos i t i on i n s uch a w ay thati nj ury w oul d be s uf f er ed i f s uch deni al orcontr ary as s ert i on w as al l ow ed. ” Sim m ons Housing, I

nc. v. Shelton , 36 S o. 3d 1 2 8 3, 12 87 (M i ss. 20 10 ) ( qu otat i on om i t t ed). B ecause
e q u ita b le e s to p p e l is a n e x tr a o rd in a ry re m e d y , it is o n e th a t sh o u ld b e a p p lie d w ith c a u tio n . I d.

“ In e q u itab le o r fra u d u len t co n d u c t m u st b e e sta b lish e d to a p p ly th e d o c tr in e o f e q u itab le
e s t o p p e l t o a s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s , ” i n c l u d i n g th e s t a tu t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s u n d e rth e M TCA . T r os clairv. Mis s . D ep’t

of T r ansp. , 7 5 7 S o . 2 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). ¶20. Forthe do ct ri ne of equ i t able est op pel t o appl y, the pl ai nt i f f m us thave r el i ed on a
m i s r epr es ent at i on by the def endantand noton a m i s r epr es ent at i on by s om e otheri ndi vi dual or

### 11

ent i ty. Forexampl e, i n T ro scla ir , thi s C our tf

ound thatthe M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof T r ansport at i on (M D O T ) w as equit ably est op ped fr om assert i ng the M T C A s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons beca us e i terr oneous l y had i nf orm ed the pl ai nt i f

f thatc ert ai n r oadw ork ha d be en per f orm ed by
a p ri v a te e n tity , w h e n , in fa c t, it h a d b e e n p e rf o rm e d b y M D O T . I

d . A s s um i ng f

orthe s ake of
ar gum entthatShanks can e s t abl i s h thatthe M T C B l ett ercont ai ned a mi s r epr es ent at i on, S h an k s’s a ll eg ati o n is tha t i t w as the M T C B , n o t K im b all G lassco , R icha rdso n , o r he r em p loy er, D C M H S, thaterr oneous l y i nf orm ed Shanks thatD C M H S w as a nongovernm ent al ent i ty. A nd,
a c c o rd in g to th e lette r, itw a s th e M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f M e n tal H e a lth , n o t K im b a ll G l as s co, D C M H S, orR i char dson t hat had pr ovi ded the M T C B w i th thatal l eged
m i s i nf or m at i on. T her e w as no s how i ng of i nequi t abl e conduc ton behal f of K i m bal l G l as s co
orR i char ds on. W e f

i nd thatno act i on by K i m bal l G l as s co orR i char ds on r eas onabl y coul d have i nduced Shanks t o bel i eve K i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on w er e notent i t l ed t o the pr i vi l eges
a n d im m u n iti e s o f th e M T C A . T h e trial c o u rt e rr e d b y fin d in g th a t th e d o c trin e o f e q u itab le
es t oppel p r event ed K i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on f r om as s ert i ng the M T C A s t atut e of lim ita tio n s . I I . W HET HER T HI S M ATTER S HOU LD BE REMA NDED FOR A DE T E RMI NAT I ON OF L OI S ’ S CO M P E T E NC Y. ¶21. B ef

or e the br i ef

i ng w as com pl et ed, S hanks fi l ed a m ot i on t o r emand f ora det erm i nat i on
o f un so u n d n ess o f m ind co n ce rnin g L o is. In su p p o rto f th e m o ti o n , S h a n k s filed co p ies o f a 1999 courtorde rcom m i t t i ng L oi s t o t he M i s s i s s i ppi S t at e H os pi t al , m edi cal r ecor ds , and a 2000
courtor derf

orcont i nued tr eatm entthr ough outpat i entcomm i t m ent . I n the m ot i on, Shanks arg u es th at a d eterm ination o f u n so u n d n ess o f m ind is r eq u ir ed b ec au se, i f L o is w as u n d er a

### 12

di s abi l i ty on the dat e of

heracc i denton A pr i l 15, 2005, then the one- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons underthe M T C A w oul d notbegi n t o run unt i l the r emoval of the di s abi l i ty. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S ect i on 11 -46-11(4) pr ov i des:

Fr om an d a f

t e rA pr i l 1, 19 93 , i f

a ny pe r s on e nt i t l e d t o b r i ng a ny a ct i on underthi s chapt ershal l , att he t i m e atw hi ch the ca us e of act i on acc rued, be under th e d isa b ili ty o f in fa n c y o r u n so u n d n e ss o f m in d , h e m a y b rin g th e a c tio n w ith in the t i m e al l ow ed i n thi s s ect i on af t erhi s di s abi l i ty s hal l be r emoved as pr ovi ded by l aw . The s avi ngs i n f avorof per s ons underdi s abi l i ty of uns oundnes s of

m i nd shal l nev er ext end l on ger than tw enty- on e (21) years
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11-46- 11( 4) (Rev. 2002). T o i nvoke thi s s t atut e, the cl ai m antneed nots how a f or m al adj udi cat i on of

i ncompet ency, butm ay “pr es enta l t ernat i ve evi dence t o pr ove thathe l acke d the r equi s i t e under s t andi ng f orha ndl i ng hi s l egal af

f ai r s . ” R ock w el

l v. P ref erred R isk Mut . I ns. Co. , 7 1 0 S o . 2 d 3 8 8 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 ). ¶2 2
. W e fin d th a t S h a n k s’s m o ti o n i s no t w ell -t ak en . F irst, S h a n k s d id n o t re q u e st a d eterm ination o f un so u n d n ess o f m ind from the tri al co u rt ; i ssu es n o t r aised in the tr ial co u rt
a re b a rr e d fr o m c o n s id e ra tio n a t th e a p p e lla te le v e l. T o w n o f T e rr y v. Sm ith , 48 So. 3d 507, 5 0 9 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ). S e c o n d , b e c a u se S h a n k s b ro u g h t th is a c tio n o n b e h a lf o f L o is, a n d L o is is notthe pl ai nt i f

f i n thi s cas e, L oi s ’ s compet ence t o ass ertherr i ght s i n thi s l aw s ui ti s notat is s u e . See U

. S. Fi d. & G uar. Co. v. Conse r vators hi p of Mel s on , 8 09 S o. 2d 64 7, 65 4 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 ). S h a n k s ’s a u th o ri ty to a s s e rtL o is ’s r ig h ts in th is la w s u it h a s n e v e r b e e n q u e s tio n e d . W e d e n y S h a n k s ’s m o tio n to re m a n d fo r a d e te rm in a tio n o f u n s o u n d n e s s o f m in d
. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 3
. W e h o ld th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y fin d in g th a t w a iv e r a n d e sto p p e l b a rre d K im b a ll G l ass co and R i char ds on f r om as s ert i ng the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons underthe M T C A
. ShanksIn hisb rie f, th e plaintif f do es no t add

res s thi s iss ue , altho ugh hedid rai se it in thetri al c ourt. 4 

### 13 f i l e d th e c o mp l a i n ta f

t e rth e e x p i r a t i o n o f

th e o n e - y e a rs t a tu t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s . T h e r e f

o r e , we
r ever s e the deni al of

the mot i on t o di s m i s s , and re ndera j udgm enti n f avorof K i m bal l G l as s co
a n d R ic h a rd s o n . ¶ 2 4
. RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , R A N D O LP H , P I E R C E A N D K I N G , JJ. , C O N C U R . K I TC H EN S, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY CAR LS ON , P. J . , AN D LA M AR, J . DI CK I NSON, P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TTEN OPI NI ON. L A M A R , J. , C O N C U R S IN P A R T A N D IN RE S UL T W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. KI TC HENS , J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N RE S UL T ONL Y: ¶ 2 5 . W h ile I a g re e tha t th e d o c trin e o f eq u itab le e sto p p e l is no t ap p lica b le in th is c a s e , I 4
r es pect f ul l y di s agr ee w i th t he m aj or i ty’ s re as oni ng. T he m aj or i ty fi nds t hatK i m bal l G l as s co
an d R icha rdso n are n o t equ it ab ly es top p ed from asse rt ing the M issi ssipp i T o rtC lai m s A ct’s ( M T C A ’ s ) one - years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons beca us e i tw as the M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s B oar d, and notK i m bal l G l as s co orR i char ds on, thatm ade the al l eged m i s r epr es ent at i on. H ow ever , the doctr i ne of

equi t abl e es t oppel doe s nota ppl y, be caus e the boar d i n f actneverr epr es ent ed t o the pl ai nt i f f thatD el t a C om m uni ty M ent al H eal t h Servi ce ( D C M H S) w as notcover ed by the M issi ssipp i T o rtC lai m s A ct (M T C A ). ¶26. T he TortC l ai m s Fund w as es t abl i s hed i n acc or dance w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 4 6 -1 7 , a n d d is tin g u is h e s b e tw e e n “ g o v e rn m e n ta l e n tit[i e s ]” a n d “ p o li ti c a l s u b d iv is io n s .” Subse ct i on ( 1) pr ovi des that“ eac h gove rnm ent al ent i ty other tha n p oli t i cal s ub divisi on s sh a ll p a rticip a te in a c o m p re h e n siv e p lan o f se lf-in su ra n c e a n d /o r o n e o r m o re p o lic ies o f liab ili ty

### 14

i ns ur ance admi ni s t er ed by the D epart m entof Fi nance a nd A dm i ni s tr at i on, ” w hi l e s ubs ect i on (3 ) re q u ire s “ p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n s” to o b tain in su ra n c e o r e sta b lish in su ra n c e re se rv e s o n th e ir
o w n . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 7 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). “P o lit ica l su b d iv isio n ” is def i ned as “any body pol i t i c orbody corpor at e othert han the s t at e r es pons i bl e f orgovernm ent al act i vi t i es onl y i n geogr aphi c ar eas s m al l ert han t he s t at e, i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o any county, m uni ci pal i ty, s chool di s tri ct , comm uni ty hos pi t al
. . . , ai rpor tauthor i ty, orother i ns trum ent al i ty ther eof

. . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11-46- 1( i ) (Rev. 2002). T hus , the s t at e has i t s o w n cl ai m f

und s epar at e and apartf r om thos e of

i t s “pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i ons , ” and the M i s s i s s i ppi Tor tCl ai m s Boar d i s ve s t ed w i th the author i ty t o over s ee a nd admi ni s t erthi s f und. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 19 ( R ev. 2002)
. W hi l e the boar d may “r evi ew a nd a ppr ove orr ej ect any pl an of

l i abi l i ty i nsurance ors el f
- i ns ur ance r es erves pr opos ed orpr ovi ded by pol i t i cal
s ubdi vi s i ons , ” i tdoes notas s i gn cl ai m s t o att orneys orpur chase i ns ur ance pol i ci es f orthe

“ p o litic a l s u b d iv is io n s .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -1 9 (d ),( h ),( l) (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). See M aj
. O p. n. 1. ¶27. T he l ett erof J ul y 28, 2006, fr om t he M T C B s i m pl y s t at ed thatD C M H S w as not cover ed by the s t at e f

und underS ect i on 11-46- 17( 1) ; i tdi d notf or ecl os e, oreven s peak t o, the ques t i on of w hetherD C M H S w as a “gove rnm ent al ent i ty” ent i t l ed t o i m m uni ty underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 11. T he t extof the l ett er , i n i t s ent i r ety, s t at ed: T hi s w i l l acknow l edge r ece i ptof yournot i ce o f cl ai m l ett erdi r ect ed t o the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof M ent al H eal th conce rni ng t he above r ef er ence d m a tte r. W e h a v e b e e n in c o n tac t w ith th e M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f M e n tal H e a lth conce rni ng thi s mat t era nd a dvi s ed thatD el t a C om m uni ty M ent al H eal th Ser vi ce i s nota s t at e age ncy nori s i ta depa r t m ento r di vi s i on of the M i s s i s s i ppi D e p a rt m e n t o f M e n ta l H e a lth
.The majority is corr ect that“a reg io na l ment al health commission is a state a gency,” for 5 imm unitypurpo ses , b ut reg ion al mentalhe alth c om miss ion s are created , f

un de d, an d g ov ern ed

at the county le vel. Se e Mis s. Co deAnn. §§ 41 -19 -31 to 41 -19 -43 (Rev . 2 00 9). Thus , D C M H S is a “politi cal subdivi sion” thatdoes not pay into the state Tort Claims Fund. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46- 17 (Rev . 2 00 2). Se e Miss. Credit

Ctr., Inc. v. Horton , 9 26 So . 2 d 1 67 , 1 81 (Mi ss. 20 06 ). 6 Se e id. at 18 0 (def

en dant m us t pu rsu e disp os itiveaf

firm ativede fens e); Es tat

e o f G rim es 7 v. Warrington , 982 So. 2d 365, 370 (Miss. 2008) ( de fendant must plead disposit ive affirmative de fens e, bringit t o c ourt’ s attentio n, an d re qu est he aring ). 

### 15 F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , w e w ill u n fo rtu n a te ly b e u n a b le to c o n s id e r t h is c la im . W e re g re t w e w ill b e u n a b le to a ss ist y o u o r y o u r c lien t an y fu rth e r in th is re sp e c t. T he boar d w as m er el y not i f yi ng t he pl ai nt i f

f t hati tw oul d notbe handl i ng the cl ai m , buti tnever said that D C M H S w as n o t entit led to the p rotec ti o n s o f th e M T C A
. T h e re fo re , th e p lai n ti ff 5 cannotr el y on the doctr i ne of equi t abl e es t oppel beca us e the boar d di d notm ake a ny
m i s r epr es ent at i on t o the pl ai nt i f f
. Forthes e r eas ons , I r es pect f ul l y concuri n r es ul tonl y. CARL S ON, P . J . , AND L AM AR, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. DI CK I NS ON , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶28. T he m aj or i ty’ s c l ai m thatw e empl oy a de novo sta n d a rd o f re v iew is m isle a d in g . W h ile
w e re v iew d e n o v o the g ran t or d en ial o f a m o ti o n to d ism iss , th e rea l i ssu e b efo re this C o u rt i s wh e th e rKi mb a l l Gl a s s c o a n d Ri c h a r d s o n wa i v e d th e i rM i s s i s s i p p i T o r tCl a i ms Ac t( M T CA ) def ens es , and w e r evi ew w ai veri s s ues underan abus e- of
- di s cr et i on s t andar d. 6 ¶29. K i m bal l G l as s co and Ri char ds on r ai s ed thei rM T C A d efens es on M ay 12, 2008, but
w ai t ed thi r t een mont hs t o s etthem forhear i ng. T he tr i al j udge hel d the def ens es w er e w ai ved. 7 B e c a u se th e m a

jo rity h o ld s th a t th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is d isc re tio n , I m u st d iss e n t. ¶30. T he maj or i ty’ s s ol e bas i s f orr ever s i ng the tr i al j udge i s s om e al l eged c orr es pondence

### 16

f r om def ens e couns el t o couns el f orthe pl ai nt i f

f
. I f i nd i ti r oni c that , i n maki ng hi s rul i ng, the tr i al j udge r ef

err ed t o corr es pondence notf ound i n t he r ecor d; and t he m aj or i ty now re l i es on thats ame corr es pondence t o re ver s e hi m , even though the tr i al j udge had the opportuni ty t o r ead the corr es pondence , and t he m aj or i ty di dn’ t . B eca us e thi s al l eged corr es pondence i s noti n the
re c o rd , I fin d it h ig h ly im p ro p e r fo r u s e v e n to c o n sid e r it. ¶31. B uteven if

the corr es pondence w as i n the r ecor d i n exac t l y the s ame f orm as r eci t ed
w ith in th e trial ju d g e ’s o rd e r, I w o u ld still h o ld th e trial ju d g e d id n o t a b u se h is d isc re tio n in hol di ng the def

ens es w er e w ai ved. M y r eas ons ar e thes e: ( 1) T he J une 27, 2008, l ett ernei therm ent i oned norr eques t ed a he ar i ng on the defenses; (2 ) F o r se v e n m o n th s fo llo w in g th e J u n e 2 7 lette r, d e fe n se c o u n se l d id no thing w hats oev er t o ad van ce the d efenses. ( 3) I n corr es pondence t o the pl ai nt i f f’ s couns el dat ed J anuary 13, 2009, the def endant s s t i l l di d notr eques ta hea r i ng dat e f orthe def

ens e. (4) O n A pri l 6, 20 09 , the p l ai nti ff served dis cov ery on the defend ants , i ncl udi ng i nt err ogat or i es , r eques t s f orpr oduct i on of doc um ent s , and r eques t s f

oradmi s s i on. ( 5) O n M ay 14 and M ay 22, 2009, t he def endant s s erved di s covery r es pons es o n S h an k s, the reb y p arti cipa ti n g in the li ti g ati o n . S ti ll , n o n o ti ce o f a heari ng on theiraff

i rm at i ve d efenses. ( 6) I twas n otu nt i l Apr i l 8 , 2 00 9 – el even m ont hs after th e d efe n ses w ere as s ert ed – thatc ouns el f orthe def

endant s f i r s tpr ovi ded avai l abl e hea r i ng d a tes to p lain tiff’s c o u n se l. ( 7) T hen, the def

endant s w ai t ed anothertw o m onths t o setthe mat t erf or hear i ng. ¶32. T he ques t i on i s notw hetherthe j us t i ces on thi s C our tthi nk these f act s amountt o a
w ai ver ; the ques t i on i s w hetherthe tr i al j udge – ha vi ng f ound a w ai ver– abus ed hi s di s cr et i on.

### 17

I do notbel i eve the r ecor d bef or e us j us t i f

i es a f i nd i ng thath e d i d. I w oul d af f i r m the tr i al j udge’ s hol di ng thatthe def endant s w ai ved thei rM T C A def ens es . B eca us e the maj or i ty hol ds
o th e rw ise , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t.