Opinion ID: 64044
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by the Tebo Brothers

Text: The next claim we will consider is that for intentional infliction of emotional distress. One description of this tort in Mississippi is this: In general, damages for mental anguish or suffering are recoverable when they are the natural or proximate result of an act committed maliciously, intentionally, or with such gross carelessness or recklessness as to show an utter indifference to the consequences when they must have been in the actor's mind. Lyons v. Zale Jewelry Co., 246 Miss. 139, 150 So.2d 154, 158 (1963). The emotional distress must have been intended or a reasonably foreseeable result of a defendant's act. Adams v. U.S. Homecrafters, Inc., 744 So.2d 736, 743 (Miss.1999). The tort requires conduct that is wanton and willful and that would evoke outrage or revulsion. Speed v. Scott, 787 So.2d 626, 630 (Miss.2001). The conduct must go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and... be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. White v. Walker, 950 F.2d 972, 978 (5th Cir.1991) (quoting Lyons, 150 So.2d at 158). In her amended complaint, Mrs. Tebo alleged that the defendants by entering a conspiracy to institute, instituting, and continuing an original proceeding with malice and in intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the plaintiff, had committed this tort. That is by far her broadest statement of the claim. Relevant in our review, though, are not her pleadings but her required responses beyond her pleadings to the motion for summary judgment. We will review those to see what remains in issue on this tort. The first relevant document is Mrs. Tebo's own request for partial summary judgment. There she had a heading for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the text of the section that follows only concerns the tort of malicious prosecution. Thus, she did not state anything in that filing concerning this tort. In her pleading responding to the Tebo brothers' summary judgment motion, she used one brief paragraph to address this particular tort. She alleged that Sonnier's conduct was wanton, willful, malicious, and outrageous, but she said nothing about the Tebo brothers. These filings do not fulfill Mrs. Tebo's obligation to respond to the motion for summary judgment as to these Defendants on this claim. The suit against counselor Sonnier, the one person mentioned in her response, has been settled. Nothing in Mrs. Tebo's summary judgment response satisfies the provision that someone opposing judgment mustby affidavits or as otherwise provided in this ruleset out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). Continuing the lack of focus on this tort, Mrs. Tebo has very little discussion on appeal of intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to the Tebo brothers, she alleged only that they made a false affidavit to have Mrs. Tebo committed in an effort to take her property. As to the two doctors, she alleged that they never meaningfully examined her, but in an effort to have her committed, simply wrote a report finding a mental illness and defect. The fairest reading of the presentation of this tort below and here is that it was an adjunct to the malicious prosecution claim. No factual response was made below to these Defendants' summary judgment evidence on intentional infliction of emotional distress. The one appellate argument that she makes about this tort concerns the allegedly false affidavit presented by the Tebo brothers. That argument does not undermine the judgment on this claim, as the discrepancies between the behavior Mrs. Tebo admitted and the behavior the Tebo brothers alleged are only in some of the details. On this record, we need not reach the question of whether the act of intentionally seeking to commit a person based upon knowingly false allegations in order to take her property could form the basis of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. We affirm summary judgment as to intentional infliction of emotional distress. The tort of malicious prosecution is where Mrs. Tebo has given her factual and legal focus both below and here. We examine that next.