When any person fails to pay an open account within thirty (30) days after receipt of written demand therefor correctly setting forth the amount owed and an itemized statement of the account in support thereof, that person shall be liable for reasonable attorney's fees to be set by the judge for the prosecution and collection of such claim when judgment on the claim is rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Evidence of receipt of written demand by the spouse of the debtor when they are living together as husband and wife on behalf of the debtor may be introduced as evidence of written demand on the debtor. If that person sued on the open account shall prevail in the suit, he shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees to be set by the judge.
If delivery of written demand on the debtor is attempted, but not accomplished because circumstances made delivery of written demand impossible, a notation, on the envelope containing the written demand, made by the person attempting delivery stating the date of the attempted delivery, the reasons why delivery could not be accomplished along with the initials of the person attempting delivery and making said notation may be introduced as evidence of written demand on the debtor, and if the judge in his discretion finds that sufficient evidence of due diligence in delivery of written demand has been made, he may make a conclusion of written demand for purposes of justice and find that there has been written demand on the debtor.
Laws, 1980, ch 443, eff. 7/1/1980.
Notes of Decisions
Patton Med. of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Michael Relle, 269 So. 3d 266 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 42× “and O&P in Harrison County Court, seeking recovery under the parties' business venture agreement and under Mississippi's open-account statute, Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-53-81 (Rev. 2012). ¶ 2. On Relle Sr.”
Cox v. Howard, Weil, Labouisse, Friedrichs, Inc., 619 So. 2d 908 (Miss. 1993).
· cites it 13× “Cox appealed to this Court assigning as error: (1) the trial court erred in not enforcing the Customer's Agreement; (2) the trial court erred in not compelling the arbitration of the dispute between the parties as required by the Customer's Agreement; (3) the trial court erred…”
Par Indus., Inc. v. Target Container Co., 708 So. 2d 44 (Miss. 1998).
· cites it 8× “Target then filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-53-81 (Supp. 1997). The circuit court awarded Target attorneys' fees of one-third of the amount collected on open account, or $67,156.”
T. Jackson Lyons & Assocs., P.A. v. Precious T. Martin, Sr. & Assocs., PLLC, 87 So. 3d 444 (Miss. 2012).
· cites it 11× “” Miss.Code Ann. § 11-53-81 (Rev.2002). Lyons also claims that the attorney’s fees could have been a sanction, which would have been warranted under Rule 37 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure based on Martin’s contempt of court and his denial of matters in responses to…”
Franklin Collection Serv., Inc. v. Gwenlyn M. Collins, 206 So. 3d 1282 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “I would render judgment in favor of FCS for $950 and remand the issue of attorney’s fees to the trial court to be assessed pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-53-81 (Rev. 2012). ¶19. After its appeal to circuit court, FCS responded to Collins by propounding…”
Dynasteel Corp. v. Aztec Indus., Inc., 611 So. 2d 977 (Miss. 1992).
· cites it 6× “[Aztec] is clearly entitled to attorney's fees under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-53-81 since much more than thirty days [had] elapsed since [Dynasteel] was placed on proper notice of the $12,835.”
Stanton & Assocs. v. Bryant Const. Co., 464 So. 2d 499 (Miss. 1985).
· cites it 4× “The propriety of awarding attorneys fees in a suit on open account is controlled by Miss. Code Ann. § 11-53-81 (Supp. 1984). The propriety of prejudgment interest in suits on open accounts is based on caselaw such as J.”
Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Alpha Bldg. Co., 591 F. Supp. 198 (N.D. Miss. 1984).
· cites it 16× “18 together with legal interest and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-53-81 (1972). The defendant claims entitlement to summary judgment on the basis of this court’s order entered November 15, 1983.”
Bryant, Inc. v. Walters, 493 So. 2d 933 (Miss. 1986).
· cites it 4× “Noted in the complaint and attached as exhibits are an affidavit, a purported account, and a demand letter dated March 28, 1984, written pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-53-81 . The affidavit asserts that the "statement" attached is a "true and correct statement of the claim and…”
Magnolia Farm Servs. v. Tunica Oil Co., 438 So. 2d 285 (Miss. 1983).
· cites it 14× “, defendant/appellant, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-53-81 (Supp. 1982), and the jury found for the appellee and awarded an attorney's fee of $3,108.”
Barnes, Broom, Dallas & Mcleod, Pllc v. Est. of Marilyn I, 991 So. 2d 1209 (Miss. 2008).
· cites it 4× “See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-53-81 (Rev.2002) ("[the defendant] shall be liable for reasonable attorney's fees to be set by the judge for the prosecution and collection of such claim when judgment on the claim is rendered in favor of the plaintiff.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.