Linda Laffitte v. Southern Financial Systems, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CA-01724-COA
LINDA LAFFITTE AND HARRY LAFFITTE
APPELLANTS
v.
SOUTHERN FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
10/10/2008
HON. ROBERT WALTER BAILEY
WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TIMOTHY J. MATUSHESKI
WILLIAM V. WESTBROOK
CIVIL - CONTRACT
DISMISSED THE LAFFITTES’ APPEAL
FROM JUSTICE COURT
AFFIRMED - 09/15/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
On July 12, 2007, Southern Financial Systems, Inc. (Southern Financial), filed an
open-account collection action in the Justice Court of Wayne County, claiming that Linda
and Harry Laffitte failed to pay $1,873.70 owed to Wayne General Hospital. The justice
court clerk issued summons to both Linda and Harry, directing them to appear at the justice
court on August 15, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. Linda was personally served with process on July
18, 2007. Harry was personally served that same day, but he later claimed that he was never
properly served with process.
¶2.
The Laffittes failed to respond to Southern Financial’s complaint and failed to appear
before the justice court to defend the action. The justice court entered a default judgment in
favor of Southern Financial against the Laffittes in the amount of $1,873.70. The justice
court issued a writ of garnishment on October 19, 2007, to Linda’s employer, C&C Foods
in the amount of $1,933.70, which included the unpaid court costs. C&C Foods withheld this
amount from Linda’s earnings.
¶3.
On February 19, 2008, the Laffittes filed a motion to vacate the default judgment. On
March 7, 2008, Southern Financial notified the justice court that the judgment had been
satisfied. The garnishment was subsequently released. On April 23, 2008, the justice court
dismissed the Laffittes’ motion to vacate the default judgment with prejudice. On April 23,
2008, the Laffittes filed an “amended notice of appeal” in the Wayne County Circuit Court.
On May 23, 2008, the Laffittes filed a motion to vacate the default judgment in the circuit
court, asking the circuit court to overturn the default judgment in the justice court pursuant
to Rule 60(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Southern Financial filed a motion
to docket and dismiss the appeal of the default judgment. After a hearing on the motions, the
trial court affirmed the justice court’s order denying the Laffittes’ motion to vacate. The
circuit court denied the Laffittes’ motion to vacate as well as a counterclaim for wrongful
garnishment against Southern Financial, which was filed by Linda.
¶4.
The Laffittes now appeal, asserting the following issues: (1) Harry was not properly
served with process; (2) service of process on Linda was not in compliance with Mississippi
law; (3) the circuit court erred in finding it had no jurisdiction over their appeal; (4) Southern
2
Financial’s claim against them was barred by the three-year statute of limitations; (5)
Southern Financial did not meet its burden of proof entitling it to a default judgment; and (6)
they were not required to post an appeal bond to perfect their appeal from the justice court
to the circuit court. Finding no error, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
¶5.
The Laffittes list several assignments of error; however, the crux of this appeal is
whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying their Rule 60(b) motion. Although
a Rule 60(b) motion was not the proper means of seeking relief from the justice court
judgment, we will not simply dismiss the Laffittes’ appeal. Rather, we will review the circuit
court’s decision to deny the Laffittes the relief they sought under the familiar abuse of
discretion standard. Davis v. Nationwide Recovery Serv., 797 So. 2d 929, 930 (¶2) (Miss.
2001).
¶6.
The circuit court found that the Laffittes were attempting to relitigate the underlying
issues resolved by the justice court’s default judgment; thus, they were not entitled to any
relief provided under Rule 60(b). The circuit court noted that the appropriate avenue for the
Laffittes to seek relief would have been to defend the action in justice court and subsequently
file a timely appeal to the circuit court.
¶7.
The circuit court did, however, address the issues presented by the Laffittes pursuant
to Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-51-91 (Rev. 2002), which provides that an appeal
from justice court be heard anew in circuit court. In regard to Harry’s argument that he was
not properly served with process, the circuit court found that Harry failed to produce credible
evidence to support his claim. According to the record, the Wayne County constable filed
3
a return with the justice court, indicating that he had personally served Harry on July 18,
2007. The constable also signed an affidavit attesting that he personally served Harry with
a summons. Harry’s only proof to support his claim consists of his own affidavit stating he
was not served with process.
The circuit court found that Harry’s allegations were
insufficient to overcome the presumption that a defendant was properly served when a
properly executed return exists. McCain v. Dauzat, 791 So. 2d 839, 842 (¶8) (Miss. 2001).
The circuit court further noted that Harry failed to timely challenge the service of process
and, thus, waived his right to dispute the sufficiency of the process. See Wayne Lee’s
Grocery & Market, Inc. v. Bay St. Louis, Miss. Commercial Props. Dev. Corp., 580 So. 2d
1295, 1300 (Miss. 1991).
¶8.
In regard to service of process upon Linda, the circuit court noted that Linda admitted
that she was personally served with process. Linda also argued that the summons itself was
defective. However, the circuit court found that Linda had also waived her right to dispute
the sufficiency of the process by failing to timely challenge the service of process. Id. We
cannot find any abuse of discretion by the circuit court in finding that the service of process
was proper.
¶9.
The Laffittes contend that the circuit court erred in finding that it had no jurisdiction
over the appeal. The circuit court specifically found that the Laffittes’ counterclaim for
wrongful garnishment was an impermissible collateral attack of the default judgment. The
supreme court has found that a party may not circumvent his or her failure to perfect a timely
appeal of a default judgment against him or her in justice court by filing a claim in circuit
court against a collection agency collaterally attacking the default judgment. Franklin
4
Collection Serv. v. Stewart, 863 So. 2d 925, 930 (¶13) (Miss. 2003). We agree with the
circuit court that the Laffittes cannot now attack the substance of the default judgment after
failing to make a timely appeal of that judgment to the circuit court.
¶10.
The Laffittes contend that the open-account claim by Southern Financial for collection
in the justice court was barred by a three-year statute of limitations. The circuit court found
that the Laffittes’ unpaid bills were owed to a governmental entity, Wayne County General
Hospital; the hospital’s accounts were assigned to Southern Financial for collection purposes
only; and the claim by Southern Financial was not time-barred pursuant to Mississippi Code
Annotated section 15-1-51 (Rev. 2003), which provides that the statute of limitations in civil
cases shall not run against the state. See Parish v. Frazier, 195 F.3d 761, 764 (5th Cir.
1999).
¶11.
The Laffittes also contend that Southern Financial did not meet its burden of proof
entitling it to a default judgment. The circuit court found no merit to this issue, finding that
the Laffittes were attempting to relitigate the issues. The circuit court further found that the
Laffittes demonstrated no legitimate basis to set aside the default judgment. We agree with
the circuit court’s findings.
¶12.
Lastly, the Laffittes argue that the circuit court improperly found that they failed to
post an appeal bond. The circuit court found no evidence that the Laffittes posted a bond
pursuant to Uniform Rule of Circuit and County Court 5.09. In their brief, the Laffittes state
that they posted a bond in the amount of zero dollars. The record contains no mention of an
appeal bond. Regardless of whether the Laffittes filed an appeal bond or not, the circuit court
addressed the merits of their arguments and found no reason to vacate the default judgment.
5
We find no error and affirm.
¶13.
Southern Financial asks for damages against the Laffittes pursuant to Mississippi Rule
of Appellate Procedure 38 for filing a frivolous appeal. Rule 38 states that if an appellate
court determines that an appeal is frivolous, “it shall award just damages and single or double
costs to the appellee.” A pleading is considered frivolous when the pleader has no chance
of success. Little v. Collier, 759 So. 2d 454, 458 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). We find that
the Laffittes’ appeal was frivolous. The Laffittes failed to timely contest their liability or the
garnishment of Linda’s paycheck. Both the justice court and the circuit court rejected the
Laffittes’ arguments in proficient, written opinions. The Laffittes had no chance of success
on appeal; thus, we find it appropriate to assess double costs of this appeal to the Laffittes.
¶14. THE JUDGMENT OF THE WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. DOUBLE COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANTS.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON
AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
6
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.