Robert B. Sullivant, Jr. v. J. Hale Freeland and Freeland Martz, PLLC

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-CP-01393-COA

ROBERT B. SULLIVANT, JR. APPELLANT

v.

J. HALE FREELAND AND FREELAND MARTZ, APPELLEES
PLLC

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/20/2023
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN KELLY LUTHER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAFAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT B. SULLIVANT JR. (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: J. HALE FREELAND
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 03/11/2025
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., McDONALD AND EMFINGER, JJ.

EMFINGER, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Robert B. Sullivant Jr. (Sullivant) appeals from the November 20, 2023 order of the

Lafayette County Circuit Court granting J. Hale Freeland and Freeland Martz PLLC’s

(collectively, Freeland) motion to dismiss Sullivant’s complaint against Freeland and denying

Sullivant’s motion to amend the complaint.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Sullivant’s complaint arose out of actions Freeland took as counsel for an expert

witness in a conservatorship action in the Lafayette County Chancery Court concerning

Sullivant’s father, Robert B. Sullivant Sr. (Sullivant Sr.). Sullivant attempted to conduct a

post-trial deposition of Dr. Frank Perkins, a forensic psychiatrist who was an expert the
chancery court appointed to perform an independent medical examination of Sullivant Sr.

pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 35.1 Freeland entered an appearance

in the chancery court case on behalf of Dr. Perkins and filed a motion to quash the deposition

subpoena issued by Sullivant.2

¶3. In his motion to quash, Freeland argued that no reason existed to conduct further

discovery since a conservator had been appointed for Sullivant Sr. and because the chancellor

had found that Sullivant Sr. had the testamentary capacity to execute his will. Freeland also

argued that Sullivant failed to comply with the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure

regarding the service of the subpoena. After a hearing on August 30, 2023, in a ruling from

the bench, the chancellor granted Freeland’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena, and

a written order was filed on August 31, 2023, in which the chancellor found:3

[Sullivant’s] subpoena did not comply with the Mississippi Rules of Civil
Procedure nor the Mississippi Rules of Evidence; the deposition was not to
take place where Dr. Perkins was located, nor did it provide for or tender
compensation of Dr. Perkins to prepare and have his deposition taken.
Moreover, it has not been shown that the deposition was within the scope of
discovery, but on issues the Court has already heard and resolved.

¶4. Before the chancellor ruled on the motion to quash, Sullivant filed his complaint

1
While a copy of the chancellor’s order appointing Dr. Perkins is not contained in
the circuit court record on appeal, the chancellor’s order granting the motion to quash is in
the appellate record and recites the fact of Dr. Perkins’ appointment.
2
Sullivant was represented by counsel during a portion of the chancery court
proceedings. However, Sullivant filed a notice pro se to take the deposition of Dr. Perkins
and apparently was not represented by counsel in the proceedings Freeland initiated to quash
the subpoena. Sullivant represented himself in filing the circuit court complaint and now
on appeal.
3
Sullivant did not appeal the chancery court’s order granting the motion to quash.

2
against Freeland in the Lafayette County Circuit Court on June 28, 2023. In Sullivant’s

complaint, he alleged that the motion to quash was improperly filed and sought damages

from Freeland for abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence,

and gross negligence, and Sullivant also sought punitive damages. On July 20, 2023,

Freeland filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

and a motion for sanctions, including legal fees. On August 8, 2023, Sullivant filed a motion

to amend his complaint, stating that “[t]he primary reason for this request is to include in the

complaint recent actions taken by the defendant that fall within the Abuse of Process claim,

which took place after the original complaint was filed.” On August 14, 2023, Freeland filed

a response to Sullivant’s motion to amend, and Sullivant replied to that response on August

15, 2023. On September 18, 2023, Sullivant also filed a motion to strike Freeland’s motion

for sanctions and legal fees.

¶5. On October 24, 2023, the circuit court conducted a hearing on Freeland’s motion to

dismiss and Sullivant’s motion to amend the complaint. After reviewing the pleadings and

hearing the parties’ arguments, the circuit court, in a ruling from the bench, granted

Freeland’s motion to dismiss, denied Sullivant’s motion to amend his complaint, and found

Sullivant’s filing was frivolous, but the court did not impose any monetary sanctions. The

circuit judge warned Sullivant that any future frivolous filings would be subject to monetary

sanctions. On November 20, 2023, the court entered its written order granting Freeland’s

motion to dismiss and denying Sullivant’s motion to amend, finding:

“[Sullivant] failed in either the complaint or its proposed amendment to cite
any authority, statute, case, or rule of law which might possibly have

3
constituted an abuse of process or any basis in which he stated a possible claim
for relief against [Freeland].” It is well settled law that an attorney owes no
duty to an adverse party that could create tort liability for actions taken during
litigation. See Henley, Lotterhos & Henley PLLC v. Bryant (No. 021-IA-
00994-SCT) (May 18, 2023).

ANALYSIS

¶6. Sullivant appeals the circuit court’s decision to grant Freeland’s motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim upon which can be granted and the circuit court’s denial of his motion

to amend the complaint. We will address the circuit court’s ruling on each motion below.

I. Whether the circuit court erred in granting Freeland’s motion to
dismiss.

¶7. “The standard of review for a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss is de

novo.” Deere v. Taylor, 394 So. 3d 991, 995 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Long v.

Vitkauskas, 228 So. 3d 302, 304 (¶5) (Miss. 2017)). In Tiger Production Co. v. Pace, 353

So. 3d 429, 433 (¶10) (Miss. 2022), the supreme court explained further:

“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal
sufficiency of the complaint.” Rose v. Tullos, 994 So. 2d 734, 737 (¶11) (Miss.
2008). “When considering a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint
must be taken as true and the motion should not be granted unless it appears
beyond doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any set of facts in
support of his claim.” Scaggs v. GPCH-GP, Inc., 931 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (¶6)
(Miss. 2006).

Weill v. Bailey, 227 So. 3d 931, 934-35 [(¶14)] (Miss. 2017).

¶8. Sullivant’s complaint alleged abuse of process, which Freeland allegedly committed

by filing a motion to quash the post-trial deposition subpoena of Dr. Perkins. He claimed

that Freeland’s actions amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress and that

Freeland was negligent or grossly negligent in filing the motion to quash and requested

4
punitive damages for gross negligence. Sullivant alleges that Freeland’s “tortious

interference into his Chancery Court matter, and his subsequent abuses of process” regarding

the conservatorship action concerning his father, resulted in damages to Sullivant.

¶9. In Ayles ex rel. Allen v. Allen, 907 So. 2d 300, 303 (¶10) (Miss. 2005), the supreme

court stated:

This Court has defined abuse of process as follows:

The action of abuse of process consists in the misuse or
misapplication of a legal process to accomplish some purpose
not warranted or commanded by the writ. It is the malicious
perversion of a regularly issued civil or criminal process, for a
purpose and to obtain a result not lawfully warranted or properly
attainable thereby, and for which perversion an action will lie to
recover the pecuniary loss sustained.

Williamson ex rel. Williamson v. Keith, 786 So. 2d 390, 393-94 (Miss. 2001)
(quoting State ex rel. Foster v. Turner, 319 So. 2d 233, 236 (Miss. 1975)
(footnote omitted)).

In Goode v. Walmart Inc., 372 So. 3d 149, 165 (¶46) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023), this Court

explained:

The elements of an abuse of process claim are as follows: “(1) the party made
an illegal use of a legal process, (2) the party had an ulterior motive, and (3)
damage resulted from the perverted use of process.” Ayles ex rel. Allen v.
Allen, 907 So. 2d 300, 303 (¶10) (Miss. 2005); see Croft [v. Grand Casino
Tunica Inc.], 910 So. 2d [66,] 76 (¶37) [(Miss. Ct. App. 2005)].

¶10. Pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 45, Freeland filed the motion to quash

the deposition subpoena on Perkins’ behalf, alleging that Sullivant was not entitled to post-

trial discovery and that Sullivant had not complied with the Mississippi Rules of Civil

Procedure in serving the deposition subpoena on Perkins.

5
¶11. As noted above, the chancellor conducted a hearing on the motion to quash the

deposition subpoena. Such a motion was proper pursuant to Rule 45. Sullivant failed to

allege in his complaint how the filing of this motion was “for a purpose and to obtain a result

not lawfully warranted or properly attainable thereby.” Ayles, 907 So. 2d at 303 (¶9). The

motion was to quash a deposition subpoena, and the chancellor granted that motion. That

is a result authorized by Rule 45. The circuit court found that Freeland’s action of filing the

motion to quash the deposition subpoena of his client, Dr. Perkins, could not give rise to

Freeland being liable to Sullivant in a tort action.

¶12. In Henley, Lotterhos & Henley PLLC v. Bryant, 361 So. 3d 621, 629 (¶26) (Miss.

2023), the court found:

Mississippi caselaw does not support a finding that HLH could be held civilly
liable for actions taken in its official capacity as an attorney representing its
client. Gilmer v. McRae, 355 So. 3d 219, 225 (Miss. 2022) (finding that
attorneys were immune from suit when acting in their official capacities); see
Roussel [v. Robbins], 688 So. 2d [714,] 725 [(Miss. 1996)] (finding that an
attorney has no duty to the adverse party that could give rise to recovery under
a tort theory).

In Clinton v. Johnson, No. 5:12-cv-848-DCB-RHW, 2013 WL 870361, at *4 (S.D. Miss.

Mar. 7 2013), a case cited in Henley, the federal court stated:

But the only actions allegedly taken by the Morgan & Morgan Defendants
were the routine actions of a lawyer representing a client, albeit in an allegedly
frivolous lawsuit. Under Mississippi law these actions alone cannot form the
basis of a malicious prosecution claim or any other tort claim, and accordingly,
all Clinton’s claims against the Morgan & Morgan Defendants will be
dismissed with prejudice because Clinton has failed to state a plausible
claim against them.

(Emphasis added). In that case, two of Clinton’s claims that were dismissed were abuse of

6
process and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

¶13. In the present case Freeland, on behalf of his client, filed a motion to quash a

deposition subpoena, which was authorized by our rules and is among “routine actions of a

lawyer representing a client.” The motion served its intended purpose because the subpoena

was quashed. Therefore, no basis exists to find an abuse of process, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, negligence, or gross negligence under the facts of this case. The circuit

court committed no error in granting Freeland’s motion to dismiss.

II. Whether the circuit court erred in denying Sullivant’s motion to
amend his complaint.

¶14. In Archer v. Harlow’s Casino Resort and Spa, 395 So. 3d 71, 74 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App.

2024), we explained the trial court’s discretion to deny a motion to amend a complaint:

We review the denial of a motion to amend a complaint “under an abuse of
discretion standard. Harmon v. Regions Bank, 961 So. 2d 693, 701 (¶28)
(Miss. 2007). “[W]hen the proposed amendment would still render the claim
futile, the [trial court] is well within [its] discretion to deny such request.”
Spiers v. Oak Grove Credit LLC, 328 So. 3d 645, 651 (¶14) (Miss. 2021)
(quotation marks omitted) (quoting Griffin v. CitiMortgage Inc., 296 So. 3d
767, 772 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)). “In other words, a court may deny a
motion for leave to amend a complaint if the proposed amended complaint
would still fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” Id.
(quoting Griffin, 296 So. 3d at 772 (¶13)); see also id. at 651 (¶15) (“To be
futile, the amendment must fail to state a claim.”).

¶15. During the argument on the motions, Sullivant advised the circuit court that there were

other instances of abuse of process that had occurred in the chancery court since the initial

complaint was filed. The circuit court’s order does not specifically address the motion to

amend, other than to deny it, but the circuit judge did explain his reasoning during the

hearing:

7
BY MR. SULLIVANT: There are some other instances of abuse of process
such as the notice of hearing which I did not agree to but for some reason the
motion got on the books and per the local rules of the chancery court I have to
agree to the time and place of the hearing. That did not happen. The hearing
did get on the docket. Then, secondly, the actual order that was entered after
the motion to quash was filed under my objection. I didn’t agree to it and I did
not sign off on the order which is customary in the chancery court that both
sides sign off on the order. And I have the order over here that Mr. Freeland
somehow got that order filed with my objection to it.

BY THE COURT: Have you brought that to the attention of the chancery
court?

BY MR. SULLIVANT: I have not yet.

BY THE COURT: I’m not, I’m not going to allow you to amend the complaint
to complain about the way a chancery court order matter was set for a hearing
or a matter in which an order was filed in chancery court without the chancery
court having an opportunity to say yes, this was right. No this was right. This
is not the right venue for that. If you got a complaint on how an order was
entered in chancery court or however the matter was set for hearing in
chancery court take it up with the chancery court.

....

BY THE COURT: The court is of the opinion that the matter in which an order
is filed in chancery court is not a subject for abuse of process claim in circuit
court and so, I am going to deny your motion to amend the complaint.

¶16. Sullivant’s arguments in support of his contention that the circuit court erred by

denying him the opportunity to amend his complaint are without merit. Because we find

there was no abuse of process, as noted above, any proposed amendment purporting to detail

other instances of abuse of process concerning the motion to quash and the entry of the

chancery court’s order would be futile. We find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s

denial of Sullivant’s motion to amend the complaint.

CONCLUSION

8
¶17. The circuit court’s dismissal of Sullivant’s complaint and the denial of his motion to

amend his complaint are affirmed.

¶18. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS,
McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, WEDDLE AND ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.

9