Victoria Haynes v. Benton Bass, No. 20-1166 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction in this diversity action as the fraud claim plaintiff raised was inextricably intertwined with the parties' divorce action; no error in denying plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint as the court would have lacked jurisdiction over the amended complaint for the same reason; dismissal modified to be without prejudice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1166 ___________________________ Victoria L. Haynes, also known as Victoria L. Bass lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Benton N. Bass lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: November 3, 2020 Filed: November 6, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Victoria Haynes appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her diversity action against her ex-husband, Benton Bass. 1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, now retired. Upon de novo review, see Barse v. United States, 957 F.3d 883, 885 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the fraud claim was inextricably intertwined with the parties’ divorce action. See Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861-62 (8th Cir. 1994) (under domestic relations exception, federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear tort claims inextricably intertwined with property settlement incident to divorce proceeding). We find no error in the denial of Haynes’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, as the court lacked jurisdiction over her proposed amended complaint for the same reasons. See Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2013) (denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion and question of futility is reviewed de novo). However, we modify the dismissal of the action to be without prejudice. See Cty. of Mille Lacs v. Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464-65 (8th Cir. 2004). We also deny Haynes’s appellate motion to disqualify Bass’s counsel. See Awnings v. Fullerton, 912 F.3d 1089, 1096 (8th Cir. 2019). The judgment is affirmed as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
