Opinion ID: 1727771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the county court judge properly complied with m.r.c.p. 12(b) and 56(c)

Text: ¶ 2. When a motion to dismiss is treated as a motion for summary judgment, the requirements of M.R.C.P. 12(b) & 56(c) must be met, and the opposing party is given at least 10 days to file materials in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Blackmon alleges that the county court judge failed to comply with the requirements set forth in M.R.C.P. 12(b) & 56(c). We disagree. ¶ 3. County Court Judge Houston J. Patton reviewed the video tape of the accident. By reviewing the tape, Judge Patton converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. We have previously held that a trial court may properly convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. Walton v. Bourgeois, 512 So.2d 698, 699-700 (Miss.1987). In Walton, we held that no specific decree is required by the court when a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is converted into a motion for summary judgment so long as an adequate opportunity to respond has been given to the party opposing the motion. Id. at 699. Anyone who reads the Rule 12(b) motion is thereby on actual notice that a motion to dismiss has the potential to be treated as a motion for summary judgment if the conditions in the rule [are] found. Id. at 700. Accordingly, Jones and her counsel were responsible for knowing the contents of Rule 12(b). Jones and her counsel were also aware that Judge Patton was considering matters outside of the pleadings by reviewing the video tape. Moreover, Judge Patton postponed making his final ruling for over three months, granting ample time for the opposing party to respond and gather additional discovery. Consequently, Judge Patton complied with the requirements set forth in M.R.C.P. 12(b) & 56(c). This issue is without merit.