Opinion ID: 1817017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in refusing leave of court to amend the complaint to include a claim for malicious prosecution?

Text: The threshold question here is whether or not the Parkers ever actually requested leave to amend their complaint. The following exchange took place at the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment: BY THE COURT: The arrest was willful, intentional and malicious. That's the arrest. False arrest and false imprisonment is all you have pled, and I'll sustain the motion for summary judgment. The statute of limitations has run by your own pleadings. You can furnish me an order to that effect ... BY MR. HARRIS: Well, am I not allowed to amend my complaint? BY THE COURT: You can't amend for false arrest. That's what is charged. You have to plead it within a year, and it wasn't filed for over two years after this happened? 1984 to 1987? BY MR. HARRIS: I have the Royal Oil v. Wells case. I'll be glad to provide it to the Court. I think that it  I think it's the case. The date of the decision is August 13, 1986. BY THE COURT: On what? I don't know what your case is about. What are you talking about? BY MR. HARRIS: It was in this Court, Judge, I don't know. It was from Jackson County. I don't know if page 6 is the right page or not, but I think that case is  on its facts, applies here. (Handing the Court a document) BY THE COURT: This is a malicious prosecution; that's not what's filed in this case. BY MR. HARRIS: Okay. BY THE COURT: That's what I just told you, that's not what's filed here. You've got a complaint for false arrest and false imprisonment and the statute of limitations is one year. I'll sustain the motion. (Emphasis Added). This discourse discloses that the Parkers' counsel clearly neglected to request leave to amend for a claim of malicious prosecution. A trial judge will not be put in error on a matter which was not presented to him for his decision. Cossitt v. Federated Guar. Mut. Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 436, 446 (Miss. 1989). This case must be decided on the facts contained in the record and not on assertions in the briefs. Britt v. State, 520 So.2d 1377, 1379 (Miss. 1988); Shelton v. Kindred, 279 So.2d 642, 644 (Miss. 1973). On this record there was no motion for leave to amend and the assignment is therefore without merit. But assuming, arguendo, that a motion for leave to amend was made, the question before us would then become whether the trial judge erred in refusing this motion. Rule 15, Miss.R.Civ.P., in relevant part, states: (a) Amendments... . Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or upon written consent of the adverse party; leave shall be freely given when justice so requires ... (c) Relation Back of Amendments. Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading ... (Emphasis Added). Our scope of review of an order denying a motion for leave to amend under Rule 15 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Bourn v. Tomlinson Interest, Inc., 456 So.2d 747, 749 (Miss. 1984). Unless we are convinced that the trial judge abused his discretion, we are without authority to reverse. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222, 226 (1962). While proposed amendments have been liberally permitted throughout Mississippi legal history and are encouraged under Rule 15 a party cannot fail to convey the subject matter of the proposed amendment to the trial judge and if they do so fail, no error can be predicated on the judge's failure to allow the amendment. In Price v. Price, 430 So.2d 848, 849 (Miss. 1983), this Court said: When a party proposes to amend his pleadings, he should ordinarily make known to the trial court the substance of his proposed amendment. In the absence of such, this Court has heretofore held that error could not be predicated thereon. See Watts v. Patton, 66 Miss. 54, 5 So. 628 (1888). The Watts decision rings true today as it did a century ago, when this Court said: ... It is next said that the court should have permitted the complainant to amend his bill, but the record does not show in what way he proposed to amend. Not knowing what amendment was desired, we cannot say that the court erred in refusing to permit it to be made. 66 Miss. at 61. This record discloses that the Parkers did not disclose the substance of their proposed amendment to the trial judge, and their application was properly refused.