Opinion ID: 1152867
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court commit reversible error in entering summary judgment against american fidelity in favor of greenville?

Text: This case was brought prior to January 1, 1982, the effective date of Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the applicable rule governing the time within which the defendant shall file his answer or demur is Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-7-121 (1972), which provides that: (1) The defendant shall plead on or before the first day of the term to which the process is returnable or within thirty days after service of process, whichever would cause the pleading to be filed earlier, or within such other time as the court by rule or otherwise may allow; and for want of plea, judgment may be entered by default. Under either measure of time, American Fidelity's answer raising the defense of the Knight action against Greenwood was not timely made. The summons served on American Fidelity on June 8, 1981, notified it of the suit filed on behalf of Greenville and commanded it to plead to the declaration filed by Greenville on or before the next term of the circuit court of Tippah County, which convened on the fourth Monday in September, 1981, or September 28, 1981. Over one year after the proper time for answering the Greenville declaration had expired, American Fidelity filed its answer raising the defense of the priority of the Knight action on the bond. No leave of court was granted to American Fidelity for additional time to plead or for an answer to be filed after time had expired. American Fidelity concedes that its answer was not timely filed, but argues that the summary judgment [1] in favor of Greenville was void because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the bond, since the Knight action was the first to be filed on the bond. American Fidelity misperceives the nature of the one-action-only rule. Even if we assume that all were required to intervene in the Knight case, this does not mean that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the Athens suit or the claim in intervention there filed by Greenville. The existence of subject matter jurisdiction  the authority to hear a given type of case at all  turns on the well pleaded allegations of the complaint which are taken as true. Luckett v. Mississippi Wood, Inc., 481 So.2d 288, 290-291 (Miss. 1985). Here the declaration of Athens certainly stated a claim within the jurisdictional competence of the circuit court. The same may be said of Greenville's claim; considered independently it stated a claim within the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction. The one-action-only rule is in the nature of an affirmative defense which may be asserted by any party wishing to take advantage of it  usually the surety. But when the one-action-only defense is sustained, this is because the defense in the nature of a plea in bar is held good, not because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a second suit. Indeed, it would seem the court had to have subject matter jurisdiction to have the authority to sustain the one-action-only defense. We do not construe any of our prior cases as suggesting to the contrary. See USF&G Co. v. Dedeaux, 168 Miss. 794, 152 So. 274 (1934) and Euclid-Mississippi v. Western Casualty and Surety Co., 249 Miss. 547, 163 So.2d 676 (1964). American Fidelity's jurisdictional argument being without merit, we find that the summary judgment entered in favor of Greenville must be affirmed. In fact, American Fidelity makes no other complaint regarding the Greenville summary judgment and all but concedes that it was properly entered if the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction. We, therefore, affirm the summary judgment of the circuit court in favor of Greenville and against American Fidelity. We reverse the circuit court's judgment in favor of American Fidelity as to Athens' claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL, REVERSED ON CROSS-APPEAL AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.