Opinion ID: 1729834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the lower court err in dismissing appellant's counterclaim prior to trial?

Text: Sipe incorporated in his original answer a counterclaim, alleging alienation of affection of his wife. Farmer filed a motion to strike the counterclaim on the basis that it did not arise out of and was not connected with the subject matter of the assault and battery claim and was not within the contemplation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-7-69 (1972). The lower court apparently sustained this motion. (No order sustaining the motion appears in the record. However, the appellee has addressed this assignment of error on the merits.) Section 11-7-69 provides, in part, as follows: In all suits at law where the defendant has a claim or demand against the plaintiff arising out of or connected with the situation, occasion, transaction or contract or subject matter upon which the plaintiff's action is based, ... the defendant in his answer may plead his claim or demand against the plaintiff by way of counterclaim, in recoupment, stating the facts upon which such counterclaim is based. (Emphasis added). The counterclaim alleged that on January 25, 1978, Mr. Farmer engaged in a love affair with Mrs. Sipe and attempted to persuade her to leave Mr. Sipe. The appellant claims that the counterclaim is proper because it is closely connected with the subject matter upon which the original claim is based. We agree that the allegations of alienation of affection in the counterclaim were so closely connected with the subject matter of the original suit, i.e., the assault and battery of Farmer by Sipe for Farmer being caught at a motel with Sipe's wife, that the lower court should have permitted the counterclaim to be tried along with the original claim. It is unimportant that Sipe did not know of the alleged love affair and talk of divorce and marriage prior to the battery. The appellee's reliance on Irby v. Citizens National Bank, 239 Miss. 64, 121 So.2d 118 (1960) is misplaced. In Irby, the plaintiff sued on a promissory note and the defendant counterclaimed for wrongful interference with his business. However, the alleged interference took place one year prior to the execution of the note. This Court said that the counterclaim had no causal or factual relation to the promissory note and affirmed the trial court's action in sustaining the motion to strike the counterclaim. A similar situation was presented in Lister v. Bank of Lucedale, 349 So.2d 1056 (Miss. 1977). In Lister, the plaintiff filed suit for the balance due on a promissory note. The defendant filed a counterclaim, alleging that the Bank rudely interrupted a business deal and ruined it. The defendant alleged that the Bank official committed a tort and damaged him when he discussed the collection and payment of the note sued upon and the defendant's credit relationship with the Bank in the presence of the defendant's business associate. The Court stated that the counterclaim should not have been dismissed because it was connected with the situation giving rise to the original suit as required by the counterclaim statute. Likewise, the counterclaim in the case at bar alleged facts which were so closely connected with the situation upon which the plaintiff's action was based as to make it a proper counterclaim under the statute.