Opinion ID: 1817017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was their request for leave to amend made timely?

Text: Assuming that a motion for leave to amend was properly made, the record indicates that the motion was made only after the trial judge had indicated that he would sustain the motion for summary judgment. The same situation occurred in the Bourn case. In affirming the lower court we said: ... A majority of the Court is now of the opinion that the chancellor did not err in overruling the appellants, plaintiffs below, motion to amend their pleadings after he had announced that he was sustaining [defendants'] motion for summary judgment... 456 So.2d at 749-750. William Iselin & Co., Inc. v. Delta Auction & Real Estate Co., 433 So.2d 911, 913 (Miss. 1983), announced: ... there are certain limits on permitting amendments. An application to amend should be prompt and not the result of an inexcusable want of diligence ... We are of the opinion that even had the Parkers properly moved for leave to amend their complaint it occurred after the motion for summary judgment had been sustained and was untimely.