In Re Guardianship of Buckalew
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01976-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01976-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-22-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eviction - Frivolous counterclaim - Attorney's fees - M.R.C.P. 11(b) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-07-2009 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Chancery Court Judge: JERRY MASON Disposition: DISMISSED COUNTERCLAIM AS FRIVOLOUS AND SANCTIONED THE DEFENDANT/APPELLEE Case Number: 06-268-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Guardianship of Ruby Buckalew: James Buckalew |
JOE CLAY HAMILTON |
|
|
| Appellee: | Diane Buccluch | ELIZABETH RHAE RANDALL DARSEY, ROBERT D. JONES | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Eviction - Frivolous counterclaim - Attorney's fees - M.R.C.P. 11(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2004, Ruby Buckalew suffered a stroke and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. She subsequently moved to Colorado to live with her daughter, Diane Buccluch. Diane and Ruby later returned to Mississippi and moved into Ruby’s home. Pursuant to a warranty deed, Ruby conveyed her house to Diane and reserved a life estate unto herself. In 2006, the chancellor appointed James Buckalew, Ruby’s son, as guardian for the person and the estate of Ruby. In 2008, while Diane was in Las Vegas, James and his wife, Vickie, removed Ruby from her home and brought her to live in their house. James filed a complaint to order Diane to vacate Ruby’s property, alleging that Diane occupied the home as part of the arrangement to care for Ruby, and since Ruby had been removed from the home, Diane must vacate the property. Diane filed her answer and counterclaim to the complaint, alleging that since the eviction notice did not constitute a guardianship matter, James improperly brought the eviction action in chancery court. She further claimed that James, as guardian, failed to petition the chancellor for authority to file the complaint as required by section 93-13-27. In her counterclaim, Diane requested that James be removed as guardian. Diane later filed a motion to dismiss her counterclaim to remove James as Ruby’s guardian. James filed an M.R.C.P. 11 motion requesting that sanctions in the form of expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in the defense of the action be granted on the grounds that the entire action by Diane was frivolous and unwarranted and done for the purpose of harassing James. The chancellor found that Diane’s counterclaim against James was a frivolous pleading, and he issued sanctions by granting James a judgment against Diane as well as reasonable attorney’s fees in the sum of $800. James filed a motion for reconsideration and to alter and amend the judgment, asking the chancellor to order Diane to pay all of James’s attorney’s fees as testified to at trial, as well as the expenses incurred by having Ruby occupy the trailer next to his house, which prevented James from renting the trailer for income. Diane also filed a motion to reconsider and/or amend or alter the opinion. The chancellor denied both motions. James appeals, and Diane cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | James argues that Diane’s answer, defenses, and counterclaim constituted frivolous pleadings and that Diane filed these pleadings with the intent to delay her eviction from the house. He argues that the chancellor’s sanction and award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $800 bore no relationship to the actual time and expense incurred in the defense of the frivolous pleadings and that he should be awarded additional attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,970. Diane, however, argues that the chancellor erred in finding that she had no hope of success on her counterclaim. Pursuant to Rule 11(b), a trial judge may order a party to pay expenses or attorney's fees if any party files a motion or pleading which, in the opinion of the court, is frivolous or is filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. A pleading is frivolous if objectively speaking, the pleader has no hope of success. In this case, the chancellor set forth his calculations regarding attorney’s fees. The record also shows that the chancellor reviewed the time sheets submitted by James’s attorney. The chancellor found that the attorney spent a total of 30.85 hours on the case as a whole, but the chancellor found $800 to be an appropriate fee for an award of attorney’s fees for the defense of the frivolous counterclaim. The record contained sufficient evidence to support the chancellor’s award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $800. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
