Opinion ID: 1652271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the chancery court erred in allowing nancy faye robison to amend her pleadings after sustaining objections to leading questions and after the testimony of only one witness and before the closing of the case-in-chief of nancy faye robison.

Text: ¶ 7. Over Jackie's objection, Judge Teel allowed Nancy to amend her complaint to conform to the evidence already presented during her testimony at trial. Jackie alleges that the trial court's ruling on this matter was error and that the amendment unfairly prejudiced his case, because it added new theories of recovery for which he had no time to prepare a defense. ¶ 8. The procedure for amending pleadings to conform to the proof is governed by Rule 15(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Practice, which allows the trial court to be liberal in granting permission to amend when justice so requires unless the objecting party shows that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in the maintaining of his action or defense upon the merits. Miss. R. Civ. P. 15(b). The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence. Id. Rule 2.09 of the Uniform Chancery Court Rules similarly allows a continuance if the opposing party is not prepared to meet any matter amended in the pleadings. U.C.C.R. 2.09. ¶ 9. Jackie cites McCarty v. Kellum, 667 So.2d 1277, 1284 (Miss.1995), in support of his position. The McCarty case is easily distinguishable from the issue here. In this case, Nancy was allowed to amend the pleadings in the middle of her own testimony before Jackie was called as a witness, whereas in McCarty the plaintiff attempted to amend the pleadings to add an additional theory of negligence after the close of the defendant's case. Id. at 1281-82. The only contested issues in the amended pleadings here were the increased requests in the amount of lump sum and periodic alimony. Jackie had to put on the same evidence to defend the request for alimony, regardless of the amount in the pleadings. He had the opportunity to sufficiently present his side of the monetary issues once he took the stand after the amendment, and could have requested a continuance if he felt that he needed additional time to prepare. We hold that the amendment to the pleadings allowed in this case did not prejudice Jackie so as to require reversal.