Case Name: CITY OF MERIDIAN, Mississippi d/b/a East Mississippi Drug Task Force v. $104,960.00 U.S. CURRENCY, and a 2003 Ford F-150 Supercab Truck, VIN #1FTRX17213NB65899 and Maria I. Valle Catalan
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2017-09-28
Citations: 231 So. 3d 972
Docket Number: NO. 2015-CT-00710-SCT
Parties: CITY OF MERIDIAN, Mississippi d/b/a East Mississippi Drug Task Force v. $104,960.00 U.S. CURRENCY, and a 2003 Ford F-150 Supercab Truck, VIN #1FTRX17213NB65899 and Maria I. Valle Catalan
Judges: WALLER,.C.J., RANDOLPH AND KITCHENS, P.JJ.,. KING AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. COLEMAN, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY CHAMBERLIN, J. ISHEE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 231
Pages: 972–979

Head Matter:
CITY OF MERIDIAN, Mississippi d/b/a East Mississippi Drug Task Force v. $104,960.00 U.S. CURRENCY, and a 2003 Ford F-150 Supercab Truck, VIN #1FTRX17213NB65899 and Maria I. Valle Catalan
NO. 2015-CT-00710-SCT
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
09/28/2017
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANDY DAVIS
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: J. STEWART PARRISH, JESSICA LEIGH MASSEY

Opinion:
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BEAM, JUSTICE,
FOR THE COURT:
¶ 1. The City of Meridian filed a petition for forfeiture under Mississippi Code Sections 41-29-153(a)(5) and/or 41-29-153(a)(7) against Maria Catalan after police found $104,690 in her truck during a traffic stop. Catalan filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, which the Lauderdale County County Court granted. The Lauderdale County Circuit Court affirmed. The City appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. City of Meridian v. $104,960.00 U.S. Currency, 231 So.3d 1055, 2016 WL 3906076 (Miss. Ct. App. July 19, 2016), The City petitioned this Court for writ of certiorari.
¶ 2. Having granted- certiorari, we agree with the Court of Appeals' dissent that the City's forfeiture petition satisfies the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. We also agree with the Court of Appeals' dissent that in deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the county court considered matters outside the City's petition. The court also considered matters outside the pleadings for purposes of Rule 12(c), which allows for a judgment on the pleadings. In doing so, the county court in effect converted the Rule 12(b)(6) and/or 12(c) motion into a motion for summary judgment, as provided in Rule 56 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure requires at least ten days' notice to both parties that the court is converting the 'motion,, which did not occur in this instance. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals as well as the county court's order, and remand the case for further proceedings.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 3. The Court of Appeals set forth the facts of the case as follows:
On June 2, 2012, Catalan was pulled over for "tired" driving. A consensual search revealed $104,690 hidden in one of the truck's compartments. No contraband or drugs, were found in the truck. Nor was Catalan charged with any criminal offense or even a traffic citation.
A few weeks later, the City filed a petition for forfeiture requesting the forfeiture of Catalan's truck and the $104,690. Catalan filed an answer and .a request for production. The City then filed a. .motion to continue and/or set the case, and the case was set for November 3, 2012.
The case dragged on for over a year with discovery and motions. On August 14, 2013, Catalan filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). After a hearing, the court granted the motion and ordered the City to return the confiscated money and truck to Catalan. The City appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the county court's decision....
City of Meridian, 231 So.3d at 1056, 2016 WL 3906076, at *1.
¶4. The Court of Appeals held that, while the City's petition named the currency and truck as items for forfeiture, it failed to state any reason for their forfeiture. Id. at 1058-59, 2016 WL 3906076, at *3. "Specifically, the City presented no facts or circumstances to show how the use or intended use of the money and truck violated the Mississippi Uniform Controlled Substances Law." See id. (relying on M.R.C.P. 8 cmt., which states, "[a]l-thqugh Rule 8 abolishes many technical requirements of pleadings, it does not eliminate the necessity of stating circumstances, occurrences, and events which support the proffered claim"). Therefore, according to the Court of Appeals, the City failed to meet Rule 8's threshold requirements, and its petition was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Id.
¶ 5. The Court of Appeals also rejected the City's claim that the county court made findings of fact and conclusions of law outside the complaint, which would have converted Catalan's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, and which requires the City be given ten days' notice of the motion for response. Id.
¶ 6. The Court of Appeals found that, in looking at the county court's order, "it is clear that the court relied solely on the pleadings to find that the City had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted." Id. According to the Court of Appeals, "[n]o exhibits, affidavits, or other forms of evidence were presented to the court." Id.
¶ 7. We disagree with the Court of Appeals that the City's petition failed to state a claim for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6). We also disagree with the Court of Appeals that the county court did not go outside the petition for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) or the pleadings for purposes of Rule 12(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Based on our review of the record, the county court did do so and effectively treated the motion as one for summary judgment. Accordingly, we must reverse.
DISCUSSION
¶8. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted raises an issue of law, which is reviewed de novo. Jourdan River Estates, LLC v. Favre, 212 So.3d 800, 802 (Miss. 2015). The motion tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint, specifically the City's petition for forfeiture in this case. Id. Review is limited to the face of the pleading, and allegations must be accepted as true. Id. The motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any set of facts in support of the claim. Rose v. Tullos, 994 So.2d 734, 737 (Miss. 2008). "There must be no set of facts that would allow the plaintiff to prevail." J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Forrest Gen. Hosp., 34 So.3d 1171, 1173 (Miss. 2010) (quoting Wilbourn v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the U.S., 998 So.2d 430, 435 (Miss. 2008)). A reviewing court need "not defer to the trial court's ruling." Favre, 212 So.3d at 803 (quoting Rose, 994 So.2d at 737).
¶ 9. Further, Mississippi is a "notice-pleadings" state; fact pleadings are not required. Children's Med. Grp., P.A. v. Phillips, 940 So.2d 931, 934 (Miss. 2006). This means:
[U]nder our rules, [the plaintiff] is not required to plead the specific wrongful conduct. At the pleading stage, he is required only to place [the defendant] on reasonable notice of the claims against it and to demonstrate that he has alleged a recognized cause of action upon which, under some set of facts, he might prevail.
Id.
¶ 10. Here, as the Court of Appeals' dissent found, the City's petition for forfeiture informed Catalan this is "a civil action of the forfeiture of property under the authority of Mississippi Code Annotated sections 41-29-101, et. seq." City of Meridian, 231 So.3d at 1059, 2016 WL 3906076, *4 (Carlton, J., dissenting). The petition says "the property, $104,960 in currency and a 2003 Ford F-150 Supercab truck, VIN # 1FTRX17213NB65899, was lawfully seized on June 2, 2012, [in Lauderdale County, Mississippi] by the East Mississippi Drug Task Force and that the City has lawfully retained custódy of subject property since seizure." Id. The petition states that "both the currency and the truck were subject to forfeiture under section 41-29-153(b)." Id. It alleges that "the truck and currency have been used, or intended for use, or constituted proceeds in violation of the Mississippi Uniform Controlled Substances Law." Id. And it states that "the truck and currency should be forfeited pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated sections 41-29-179(4) (Rev. 2013) and 4Í-29-181(2) (Rev. 2013)." Id.
¶ 11. We find that the petition for forfeiture puts Catalan on reasonable notice of the City's claims, and it sufficiently demonstrates that a recognized cause of action exists upon which the City might prevail under some set of facts. The petition describes with specificity the property subject to forfeiture and • provides when, where, and why it was seized. And if, as the City alleges, the currency and truck have been used, or were intended for use to facilitate any violation of the Mississippi Uniform Controlled Substance Law, then the property is subject to forfeiture under Section 41-29-153. Viewing the petition in the light most favorable to the City, we cannot say it appears beyond reasonable doubt there is no set of facts by which City could prevail in its claim.
¶ 12. Further, we also agree with the Court of Appeals' dissent that the county court went outside the petition in ruling on Catalan's Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We also find that the county court went outside the pleadings for purposes of Rule 12(c), which allows a party to move for a judgment on the pleadings. Similar to a' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a Rule 12(c) motion is decided on the pleadings alone. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co., 826 So.2d 1206, 1210 (Miss. 2001). "If . matters outside the pleading are presented and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a 'motion by Rule 56 ." M.R.C.P. 12(c).
¶ 13. In the court's "order on motion to dismiss," the county court found, inter alia, that: (1) Catalan was stopped for investigation of "tired" driving and "gave permission for the officers to search the vehicle"; (2) officers conducted a "very detailed search," and found the currency "in a hidden compartment of the truck"; (3) law enforcement maintained that Catalan "denied ownership of the currency" when it was seized and Catalan, through counsel, .subsequently "claim[ed] ownership of the truck as well as the confiscated money" in her. answer(s) to the City's petition; (4) following a motion to compel filed by the City to require Catalan to supply a more detailed and specific answer to interrogatories and request for production of documents, the county court held that Catalan "had a right to assert her Fifth Amendment Privileges[.]"
¶ 14. Based on our review of the record, the court's order contains a number- of facts and/or evidence that are neither con-, tained in the City's petition (for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6)) nor in Catalan's responsive pleading(s) (for purposes of Rule 12(c)),. Some of .these facts and/or evidence are disputed by the parties and, as the City contends, may be probative with respect to the ultimate question of whether the seized property has been used, 'or was. intended for use, or constitute(s) proceeds in violation of the Mississippi. Uniform Controlled Substances Law. See e.g., One Hundred Seven Thousand Dollars ($107,000.00) U.S. Currency v. State ex rel Harrison County Sheriff's Dep't, 643 So.2d 917, 923 (Miss. 1994) ("forfeiture may. be based wholly on circumstantial evidence and inference"); see also United States v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $119,984.00, More or Less, 304 F.3d 165, 177 (2d Cir. 2002) (in contrast to a criminal case, if claimants in a civil forfeiture case exercise.their Fifth Amendment rights to avoid discovery, "the Government may . be able to obtain an adverse inference baséd on their refusal to testify").
CONCLUSION
¶ 15. For these reasons, we reverse the county court's order of1 Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and/or Rule 12(c) judgment as well as the judgment of the Lauderdale County Circuit Court and remand the case to the county 'court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶ 16. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WALLER,.C.J., RANDOLPH AND KITCHENS, P.JJ.,. KING AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. COLEMAN, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY CHAMBERLIN, J. ISHEE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
. We acknowledge that the United States Supreme Court has rejected the "no set of facts" standard for federal cases appraising a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 560-63, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969, 167 L.Ed. 2d 929 (2007) ("The phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the.complaint."). For purposes of our decision in this case, we need not decide whether this Court will adopt .the Twomhly standard.