Mike Land McRae File

Case: 45CI1:21-cv-00008-JA Document #: 5 Filed: 02/23/2021 Page 1 of 7
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
MICHAEL D. LAND PLAINTIFF
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. CI2021-008-JA
McRAE LAW FIRM, PLLC;

JUSTICE CHUCK McRAE, ESQ;
AND DREW MARTIN, ESQ. DEFENDANTS
ANSWER AND DEFENSES
COME NOW the defendants, by counsel, and respond to the subject Complaint, as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a cause of action against these defendants upon which relief
may be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
The venue of this action is improper.
AND NOW, without waiving the above-asserted defenses, these defendants respond to the
specific allegations of the Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, as follows:
1. The allegations of paragraph 1 merely attempt to summarize the claims asserted by
plaintiff and, accordingly, no response thereto is required. To the extent a response is required, it
is admitted that these defendants did not file an alienation of affection Complaint on behalf of
Michael Land. The remaining allegations of paragraph 1 are denied.
2. These defendants do not have sufficient information to admit the allegations of
paragraph 2.
3. Denied.
4. It is admitted Land entered into a contract with McRae Law Firm, PLLC on or
about July 14, 2017. The remaining allegations of paragraph 4 are denied.
{D1591732.1}
5. It is admitted that the Honorable Circuit Court Judge John Emfinger granted
summary judgment to Paul Bertucci in an action filed on behalf of Land and that Judge Emfinger
found that the statute of limitations as to Bertucci ran on October 31, 2017. As to footnote 1, it is
admitted that attorney Macy Hanson, on behalf of plaintiff, filed a Complaint as to Bertucci on
January 15, 2020. The remaining allegations of paragraph 5 are denied.
6. Denied.
paragraph 7 and, accordingly, deny the same.
8. It is admitted that Tee Land filed a Petition for Divorce against Mike Land and that
such was dismissed on or about October 19, 2019. These defendants do not have sufficient
information to admit the remaining allegations of paragraph 8 and, accordingly, deny the same.
9. It is admitted that on or about January 15, 2020, that Mike Land, with his present
counsel, filed a Complaint against Paul Bertucci in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Mississippi and said Complaint speaks for itself. To the extent that further response is required as
to paragraph 9, denied.
10. It is admitted that the case of Land v. Bertucci, Cause No. 20-0014-JE (Madison
County Circuit Court) was dismissed on summary judgment and that Judge Emfinger found that
the cause of action as to Bertucci ran on October 31, 2017. It is further admitted that the Order
was entered on or about November 12, 2020. The remaining allegations of paragraph 10 are
denied.
11. Denied.
paragraph 12.
{D1591732.1} 2
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted.
15. It is admitted that Drew Martin is a Mississippi attorney. The remaining allegations
of paragraph 15 are denied.
16. Admitted.
17. Admitted.
18. It is admitted that the case of Land v. Bertucci was filed by Land’s present counsel
in Madison County and that the divorce action was filed in the Chancery Court of Madison County.
The remaining allegations of paragraph 18 are denied.
19. Denied.
20. It is admitted that the subject retention agreement was attached to the Complaint as
Exhibit 1. The remaining allegations of paragraph 20 are denied.
21. Denied.
22. It is admitted that the referenced Complaint was filed against Paul Bertucci on or
about July 15, 2020, and that the prior Complaint was attached as Exhibit 2 to the subject
Complaint. The remaining allegations of paragraph 22 are denied.
23. It is admitted the Honorable Circuit Court Judge dismissed Land v. Bertucci, Cause
No. 20-0014-JE, Madison County, Mississippi, on summary judgment finding that the causes of
action which had been pled were barred by the statute of limitation which he ruled ran on October
31, 2017. It is further admitted that the action was dismissed on November 12, 2020. The
remaining allegations of paragraph 23 are denied.
24. It is admitted that the subject Order Granting Summary Judgment was attached as
Exhibit 3. The remaining allegations of paragraph 24 are denied.
{D1591732.1} 3
25. Denied.
26. The allegations of the last sentence of paragraph 26 are denied. As to the remaining
allegations of paragraph 26, these defendants do not have sufficient information to admit, and
accordingly, deny the same.
27. Denied.
28. These defendants incorporate the responses to the previous paragraphs of the
Complaint.
paragraph 29 and, accordingly, deny the same.
30. Denied.
31. Denied.
32. Denied.
33. It is admitted these defendants did not file a lawsuit against Paul Bertucci. The
remaining allegations of paragraph 33 are denied.
34. Denied.
35. Denied.
The allegations of the last unnumbered paragraph of the Complaint are denied and it is
specifically denied that the plaintiff is entitled to any recovery from these defendants.
AND NOW, having answered the allegations of the Complaint, paragraph by paragraph,
these defendants assert the following affirmative matter:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
These defendants rely upon any defenses which would have been available to Paul Bertucci
in the underlying litigation.
{D1591732.1} 4
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Unless it is proven that Tee Land had affections for Mike Land which were alienated by
the acts of Paul Bertucci, there can be no liability in this action.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
These defendants plead the apportionment, and other relevant provisions, of Mississippi
Code Annotated Section 85-5-7.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The subject claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
No act or omission of these defendants was the proximate cause of the dismissal of the
underlying action in Land v. Bertucci.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
These defendants plead the professional judgment rule.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
These defendants plead the doctrine of contributory negligence.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any allegation of the Complaint not specifically admitted shall be deemed denied.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff is not entitled to a recover any sums he would have been required to have paid in
attorney’s fees in regard to the underlying action against Mr. Bertucci.
{D1591732.1} 5
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The acts or omissions of the plaintiff, or his agent, was the sole proximate cause of any
damages he sustained.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
To the extent the Complaint seeks punitive damages which allegedly would have been
rendered against Paul Bertucci in the underlying matter, such damages are not recoverable from
these defendants as a matter of law.
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
In regard to plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages, the imposition of any punitive
damages would be violative of the Constitution of the United States of America, including the
Fourteenth Amendment thereof, and violative of the provisions of the Mississippi Constitution,
including Section 28 thereof. Further, an award of punitive damages would amount to deprivation
of property without due process, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, and Section 14 of the Mississippi Constitution. The criteria used to determine
whether, and in what amount, punitive damages may be awarded, is impermissibly vague,
imprecise, inconsistent, and is, therefore, in violation of the Mississippi and United States
Constitutions. Further, punitive damages may not be awarded against this defendant because it
did not act with actual malice or gross negligence which evidenced a willful, wanton and reckless
disregard for the safety of others, nor did this defendant commit actual fraud. These defendants
cannot be held vicariously liable for punitive damages. An award of punitive damages against
these defendants would be violative by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 (Miss. 1993) and, further,
would be violative of these defendants constitutional rights.
{D1591732.1} 6
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
An award of punitive damages in this case would amount to an excessive fine in violation
of Article 3, Section 28 of the Mississippi Constitution.
Respectfully submitted,
McRAE LAW FIRM, PLLC;

JUSTICE CHUCK McRAE, ESQ;
AND DREW MARTIN, ESQ.
BY: /s/ J. Wyatt Hazard

OF COUNSEL
J. WYATT HAZARD - MS BAR NO. 2141

whazard@danielcoker.com
GEORGE E. ABDO, III - MS BAR NO. 9782
gabdo@danielcoker.com
DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A.
4400 OLD CANTON ROAD, SUITE 400
POST OFFICE BOX 1084
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39215-1084
TELEPHONE: 601-969-7607
FACSIMILE: 601-969-1116
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 23, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing pleading or
other document with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent notification of such
filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ J. Wyatt Hazard
{D1591732.1} 7
Case: 45CI1:20-cv-00014-JE Document #: 19 Filed: 11/12/2020 Page 1 of 3

Mike Land McRae File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mike Land McRae File

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mike Land McRae File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 45CI1:21-cv-00008-JA Document #: 5 Filed: 02/23/2021 Page 1 of 7

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

MICHAEL D. LAND PLAINTIFF

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. CI2021-008-JA

McRAE LAW FIRM, PLLC;

ANSWER AND DEFENSES

The venue of this action is improper.

specific allegations of the Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, as follows:

1. The allegations of paragraph 1 merely attempt to summarize the claims asserted by

Michael Land. The remaining allegations of paragraph 1 are denied.

2. These defendants do not have sufficient information to admit the allegations of

January 15, 2020. The remaining allegations of paragraph 5 are denied.

7. These defendants do not have sufficient information to admit the allegations of

paragraph 7 and, accordingly, deny the same.

of paragraph 15 are denied.

The remaining allegations of paragraph 18 are denied.

Exhibit 1. The remaining allegations of paragraph 20 are denied.

Complaint. The remaining allegations of paragraph 22 are denied.

remaining allegations of paragraph 23 are denied.

Exhibit 3. The remaining allegations of paragraph 24 are denied.

accordingly, deny the same.

paragraph 29 and, accordingly, deny the same.

remaining allegations of paragraph 33 are denied.

these defendants assert the following affirmative matter:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

in the underlying litigation.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

the acts of Paul Bertucci, there can be no liability in this action.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Code Annotated Section 85-5-7.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The subject claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

underlying action in Land v. Bertucci.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

These defendants plead the professional judgment rule.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

These defendants plead the doctrine of contributory negligence.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

attorney’s fees in regard to the underlying action against Mr. Bertucci.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

these defendants as a matter of law.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

would be violative of these defendants constitutional rights.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

of Article 3, Section 28 of the Mississippi Constitution.

McRAE LAW FIRM, PLLC;

BY: /s/ J. Wyatt Hazard

J. WYATT HAZARD - MS BAR NO. 2141

filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ J. Wyatt Hazard

You might also like