I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 1 1 6 9 - CO A IN T H E M A T T E R O F T H E E S T A T E O F L O U IS S . P ANNAGL , J R. , DE CE AS ED : LOUI S CURT P AN NA GL AN D S AMM I P AU L A P AN NA GL S P EN CE APP ELLANTS

v. DAV I D LAM BERT AND M ARK HO LM ES APP ELLEE S
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 24/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. DEBBR A K. HALF ORD CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: P I KE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT S : F RA NK G. VOL L OR ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEES : ALTO N LA M AR W ATTS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W I LLS, TRU STS , AN D ESTATES T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: DE T E RMI NE D W I L L W AS RE VOKE D B UT DE NI E D S ANC T I ONS D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 04/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E L E E , C . J. , R O B E R T S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. LEE, C. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s appea l ar i s es f r om the chanc el l or ’s den i al of a m ot i on f or att orney’ s f

ees and
cos t s . Fi ndi ng thatthe cha ncel l orabus ed herdi s cr et i on, w e r ever s e and r emand. P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY ¶2
. O n A u g u st 19 , 2 0 1 1 , D av id L am b ert (L am b ert) f il ed a p eti ti o n in the C h an ce ry C o u rt
o f P ik e C o u n ty to p ro b a te a c o p y o f L o u is S . P a n n a g l Jr.’s ( L o u is) la st w ill a n d tes tam e n t. L oui s w as L amber t ’ s s t epf ather
. T he s w orn pet i t i on al l eges thatthe or i gi nal of the w i l l w as

### 2

lo st a n d th a t itw a s n o t d e stro y e d b y L o u is w ith th e in ten t to re v o k e it. L o u is’s o rig in a l w ill coul d notbe f

ound. O n J anuary 30, 2012, Loui s CurtPanna gl ( C urt ) , Loui s ’ s s on, f i l ed an obj ect i on t o the pr obat e of L oui s ’ s w i l l
. O n M ay 2, 2012, a hea r i ng w as hel d on the mot i on of C urtt o com pel B r ady K el l ems ( K el l ems) t o gi ve a depos i t i on. K el l ems, an att orney, had been c ont act ed by Loui s abouthi s w i l l
. T he courtgrant ed the mot i on. T hats ame day, L amber tf

i l ed a mot i on t o amend the pet i t i on, as ki ng the cha ncel l ort o decl ar e thatL oui s di ed intestate a n d to a p p o int D o n is Sm ith P an n ag l ( D o n is) the a d m inistrator. D o n is i s L o u is’ s
w id o w a n d L a m b e rt ’s m o th e r. ¶3. O n M ay 7, 2012, Sam m i Paul a Pannagl Spence ( Sam m i ) , L oui s ’ s daught er , f i l ed an obj ect i on t o the pr obat e of L oui s ’ s w i l l
. O n Janua ry 31, 2013, C urtand Samm i ( her ei naf t er C u rt) filed a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t an d fo r sa n c tio n s u n d e r M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 11 and the L i t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ct , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 11- 5 5 -1 (R ev . 2 0 1 2 ). L am b ert fi led h is r esp o n se to that m o ti o n o n F eb rua ry 1 , 2 0 1 3 . A ft er a h e a rin g o n F e b ru a ry 2 7 , 2 0 1 3 , the c h a n c e llo r g ra n ted C u rt’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, bu tden i ed h i s m oti on forsanct i on s. C u rtap peals the ch ancell or’ s denial of sanct i on s,
a ss e rtin g th a t L a m b e rt in ten tio n a lly w ith h e ldp e rtin e n t in fo rm a tio n fro m th e c o u rt,
c o n s titu tin g fr a u d , a n d th a t th e fi lin g o f th is a c tio n w a s fr iv o lo u s . FACTS ¶4. I n A pr i l 2011, L oui s cont act ed K el l ems aboutchangi ng hi s w i l l
. T hi s w i l l w as dat ed A pr i l 23, 2001, and had be en dr aw n up by K el l ems. L oui s s entK el l ems a nd D avi d C arr i gee ( C arr i gee) , an att orney, s om e not es r egar di ng the cha nges t o be made t o hi s w i l l
. A m ong thes e not es w as a handw r i tt en documentent i t l ed: “Pr epar at i on f orW i l l t o be w r i tt en by

### 3

B r ady K el l ems bef

or e M ay- J une 2011, ” and dat ed J anuary 18, 2011. T hi s documentl i s t ed cha ng e s Lou i s want e d t o make t o hi s wi l l
. A tthe b ott om of the f i r s to f tw o c ol um ns , the documents t at es : “The W i l l of A pr i l 23r d 2001 B r ookhav en/ B r ady K el l ems has been des tr oyed and M ar ch 23, 1993. ” O n K el l ems’ s copy of the docum ent , the w or ds , “and M ar ch 23, 1993, ” w er e w r i tt en i n a di f f er ent - col ori nk. T he documenti s s i gned by Loui s atthe t op of the page , underneath i t s t i t l e. T he s i gnatur e mat ches L oui s ’ s s i gnature on other document s , and hi s w i dow , D oni s , t es t i f i ed thatthe documentw as i n L oui s ’ s handw r i t i ng. T he or i gi nal handw r i tt en documentcoul d notbe found. C urtdi d notl earn of thi s document unt i l K el l ems’ s depos i t i on on N ovember12, 2012, m or e than a ye ara f t erthe or i gi nal pet i t i on
w as f i l ed. ¶5. A f

t er L ouis ’s death on J une 8, 2011, D oni s cont act ed C arr i gee. O n J une 17, 2011, C arr i gee s entD oni s a l ett erw i th s ever al a tt achment s . The att achment s i ncl uded the w i l l of A pr i l 23, 2001, an d the handw r i tt en documentdes cr i bed above
. D oni s t es t i f i ed thats he l ooked atthe att achment s a nd s how ed them t o Lam bert . L ambertt es t i f i ed thathe r ead the han dw ri t t en docum entw hen he s aw i t , pr i ort o of f er i ng the w i l l f

orpr obat e. A f

t erhi r i ng M ark R
. H ol m es (H ol m es ) , L amber tand hi s m othergave thes e document s t o H ol m es , w ho l at erf i l ed the pet i t i on t o pr obat e. T hi s pet i t i on di d noti ncl ude Loui s ’ s handw r i tt en d o c u m e n t. STAN DA RD OF REV I EW ¶6. W hen r evi ew i ng a dec i s i on r egar di ng the ques t i onof w he the rt o app l y s a nc t i ons under R ul e 11 and the Li t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ct , the prope rs t andar d i s abus e of di s cr et i on. C ol l i ns v. Koppers I

nc. , 59 So. 3d 582, 591 ( ¶27) ( M i s s . 2011) ( ci t i ng I n r e Spenc er , 985 So.

### 4

2d 330, 336- 37 ( ¶19) ( M i s s . 2008) )
. “I n the abs ence of a de f i ni t e and f

i rm convi ct i on that the courtbel ow comm i tt ed a c l earerr orof j ud gm enti n the conc l us i on i tr eac hed upon
w e ig h in g o f releva n t f

ac tors, ” the jud g m en t of th e c h an ce ll o r reg ard ing w h ethe r t o ap p ly
s anct i ons w i l l be af

f i rm ed. Id
. (qu o tat ion s o m itted).

DI S CU S S I ON ¶7
. In th is a p p ea l, C u rt co n tend s that L am b ert’s fa il u re to inclu d e the d o cu m e n t in th is p eti ti o n co n sti tuted frau d ; th u s, the c h an ce ll o r erred in fail ing to a w a rd sa n cti o n s. C u rt
ar gues thatL amber t , havi ng r ead the handw r i tt en documentpr i ort o f i l i ng hi s pet i t i on, knew the w i l l had been destroyed w i th an i ntentt o revoke i tand, theref ore, had no ho pe o f s uccess. A ccordi ng t o C urt , the act i on w as f ri vo l ou s and const i tuted a fr aud on the cou rtb ecause L amber tw i thhel d the docum entand fi l ed a s w orn pet i t i on al l egi ng thatthe or i gi nal w i l l w as lo s t a n d n o t d e s tr o y e d b y L o u is w ith th e in te n t to re v o k e it. ¶ 8
. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 1 (b ) sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: If a n y p a rty files a m o tio n o r p lea d in g w h ich , in th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, i s f r i vol ous ori s fi l ed f

orthe purpos e of har as s m entor del ay, the courtm ay or der s uch a party, or hi s att orney, or both, t o pay t o the oppos i ng party orpart i es the reas on able expen ses i ncu rr ed b y such otherpart ies an d b y thei r att orneys, in c lu d in g re a s o n a b le a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s . M .R .C .P . 1 1 (b ). T h e L iti g a tio n A c c o u n tab ili ty A c t sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: E xceptas otherw i s e pr ovi ded i n thi s ch apt er , i n any ci vi l act i on comm ence d or appealed i n any courtof recor d i n this s t at e, the cou rts hall aw ard , as p art of i t s j udgm entand i n addi t i on t o any othercos t s otherw i s e as s es s ed, re a so n a b le a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s a n d c o sts a g a in st a n y p a rty o r a tto rn e y if th e c o u rt, upon the mot i on of

any party oron i t s ow n m ot i on, fi nds thatan att orney or party br oughtan ac t i on, oras s ert ed any cl ai m ordef ens e, thati s w i thout s u b s ta n tia l ju s tif

ic a tio n . . . . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 55- 5( 1) ( R ev. 2012)
. T he phr as e “w i thouts ubs t ant i al j us t i f i cat i on”

### 5

i s defi ned by the A ctas a fi l i ng thatis “fr i vo l ou s, groun dles s i n factor i n law , or vexa t i ou s, as d eterm ined by th e co u rt . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -55 -3(a ) ( R ev . 20 1 2 ). “T h e term ‘friv o lo u s’ a s u se d in th is se c tio n tak e s th e sa m e d e fin iti o n as itd o e s u n d e r R u le 1 1 : a c laim
ord e f e ns e mad e ‘ w i tho uth op e o f s uc c e s s . ’ ” In re Spen cer , 985 So. 2d at338 ( ¶26) (qu o tat ion s o m itted). “A p lai n ti ff’ s b eli ef a lon e w il l no t garn er a ‘ho p e o f suc ce ss’ w h ere a cl ai m has no bas i s i n f act . ” Foster v. R oss , 804 So. 2d 1018, 1024 ( ¶21) ( M i s s . 2002) (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). W h e th e r a p a rty h a s a n y “h o p e o f su c c e ss ” is an o b jec tiv e sta n d a rd to be ana l yzed f

r om the vant age poi ntof a r eas onabl e pl ai nt i f

f atthe t i m e the compl ai ntw as fi le d
. Tri con Metal

s & Servs . I

nc. v. Topp , 5 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ). ¶9. T he chan cel l or found the f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) i tw as uncl earw hetherthe w i l l had been
re v o k e d o r if L o u is m e re ly c o n tem p late d d o in g so ; (2 ) m o re in fo rm a tio n w a s re q u ire d to det erm i ne L oui s ’ s i nt ent ; ( 3) the handw r i tt en documentw as i ns uf f i ci entt o puta pr oponent of a w i l l havi ng m i norchi l dr en as benef i ci ar i es on not i ce thati thad been r evoked; ( 4) the handw r i tt en docu m entw as nots ubs cr i bed, butm er el y s i gned atthe t op, and the var i ous
c o p ies o f th e d o c u m e n t c o n tain e d d iffe re n t-c o lo r in k ; a n d (5 ) te n d e rin g a c o p y o f L o u is’s w ill
w as not s o eg regi ou s as t o w arr ant the im po si t i on of sanct i on s againstL am bertand H olm es. ¶ 1 0
. T h e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt h a s fo u n d th a t a m isre p re se n tatio n o f p e rtin e n t fa c ts t o a cha ncel l or , w ho ent er ed an or derba s ed on the m i s r epr es ent at i ons , w as a vi ol at i on of the L i t i gat i on A ccount abi l i ty A ctand R ul e 11 of the M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and
w a rr a n te d s a n c tio n s . I

n r e Estate of

Ladner , 9 0 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 (¶1 7 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). In that ca se, an ex ec u tor an d h is attorn ey fail ed to in form the c o u rto f th e testator’s b roth er’s
c laim to o w n e rsh ip o f c a ttl e lo c a ted o n th e b ro th e r’s lan d p rio r to o b tain in g a c o u rt o rd e r to

### 6

s e iz e th e c a ttle
. I

d. at1055- 56 ( ¶¶15-16). I n addi t i on, thi s C ourthas f ound thata ver i f

i ed
cre d it o r’s n o ti ce of claim , fi led b y th e co u n sel of a cred it o r of po tential h eirs of a d ec ed en t’ s
e s ta te a n d c o n ta in in g a m is re p re s e n ta tio n o f p e rt in e n t f a c ts , w a s fr iv o lo u s . In re N ecais e , 126 So. 3d 49, 57 ( ¶30) (M i s s . A pp. C t . 2013)
. T hi s C ourtf ound thatthe mi s r epr es ent at i on
caus ed the est at e t o i ncurunnece s s ary att orney’ s f ees i n havi ng t o r es pond t o thos e f i l i ngs
a n d th u s w a rr a n te d s a n c tio n s u n d e r R u le 1 1 a n d th e L itig a tio n A c c o u n ta b ility A c t. Id
. ¶11. I n thi s cas e, L amber tf ai l ed t o di s cl ose the exis t ence of the handw r i tt en document
w h en h e filed h is p eti ti o n . A rea so n ab le pe rson in L am b ert’s po sit ion , w ith L am b ert’s know l edge, w oul d have no hope of s ucce s s i n r ebutt i ng the pr es um pt i on thatL oui s ’ s w i l l had been l os tand notdes tr oyed. L ambertadmi tt ed that , w hen he f i l ed hi s pet i t i on, he had
r ece i ved and r ead the document s att ache d t o C arr i gee’ s l ett er , w hi ch i ncl uded the h a n d w ritten d o c u m e n t. T h is le tte r, w ith a ttac h m e n ts, w a s la terg iv e n to H o lm e s p rio r to filing th is a c tio n . In th a t d o c u m e n t, L o u is liste d a m y ria d o f ch a n g e s h e w a n ted to m a k e to h is w ill . A t th e b o tto m o f th e first c o lu m n o f th e tw o -c o lu m n d o c u m e n t, he w ro te: “ T h e w ill of A pr i l 23rd 2001 B r ookhaven/B r ady K el l ems has been des tr oyed. ” T he w or ds “and M ar ch 23, 1993, ” w er e w ri t t en i n a di f f er ent - col ori nk on K el l ems’ s copy. T he documentw as sign ed b y L o u is, an d D o n is t esti fi ed that the d o cu m en t w as in h is ha n d w ri ti n g . L am b ert
se a rc h e d fo r a w ill , b u t c o u ldn o t fin d o n e . T h e file f o ld e r in L o u is’s o ffic e e n tit led “ w ill ”
w as empt y. ¶12. Fr om thi s document , i ti s cl earthatL oui s w ant ed t o m ake c hanges t o hi s w i l l and that he i nt ended t o r evoke a l l pr i orw i l l s . E ven though L oui s s i gned thi s doc um entatthe t op of the page , D oni s t es t i f

i ed thati tw as hi s ha ndw r i t i ng. W hen t aken i n c ont ext , the s t at ement

### 7

th a t: “ T h e w ill o f A p ri l 2 3 rd 2 0 0 1 B ro o k h a v e n /B ra d y K e lle m s h a s b e e n d e s tr o y e d ,”
e f f e c t i ve l y pu tLa mberta ndh i s a tt orne y onn ot i c e tha tLou i s d e s tr oy e d hi s wi l l w i th the i nt entt o r evoke i t . T hi s i s evi dence d by L ambert ’ s att emptt o convertthe pr ocee di ngs t o that
o f i n t e s t a t e s u c c e s s i o n . On th e s a me d a y th a tth e c o u rtru l e d o n a mo t i o n t o c o mp e l Ke l l e ms t o gi ve hi s depos i t i on, and pr i ort o a ny otherde pos i t i ons be i ng t aken, L ambertf i l ed a mot i on t o amend hi s pet i t i on . H e s oughta dec l ar at i on thatL oui s had di ed i nt es t at e and a s ked the
c o u rt to a p p o in t D o n is th e a d m in istra to r. T h e h a n d w ri tte n d o c u m e n t h a d n o t y e t co m e to li g h t, an d jud g ing from the ti m ing of th e m o ti o n ’s f il ing , H o lm es k n ew that o n ce itd id, th ere
w oul d be no hope of

s ucce s s i n over comi ng the pr es um pt i on. I n the hea r i ng on the mot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , H ol m es admi tt ed thathe f i l ed thatm ot i on becaus e he di d notthi nk h e c o u ld o v e rc o m e th e p re s u m p tio n th a t L o u is ’s w ill h a d b e e n lo s t a n d n o t d e s tr o y e d
. ¶13. T he cha ncel l or did n ot consi der the facto f nondi s cl os ur e t o be i m port ant w hen
m aki ng herdeci s i on aboutw hethert o aw ar d s anct i ons . B utthe factrem ai ns thatthe
n o n d isc lo su re w a s a m isre p re se n tatio n , m a k in g th e p e tit io n to p ro b a te th e w ill friv o lo u s in li g h t of th e e v iden c e . T h e c h an ce ll o r ab u sed h er d iscreti o n in n o t con side ri n g L am b ert’s
no nd i scl osure i n d et erm i ning the fr i vo l i ty of the act i on . C urti ncu rr ed u nn ecessary ex pen se i n cont es t i ng the pr obat e of thi s w i l l , onl y t o uncovera docum entthatL ambertw i thhel d f or
a lm o s t a y e a r a n d a h a lf a n d th a t w o u ld la te r s e rv e a s th e b a s is fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶14. Fi ndi ng that the chanc el l or abus ed her di s cr et i on i n deci di ng not t o aw ar d s anct i ons p u rsua n t t o R u le 1 1 a n d the L it igation A cc o u n tabili ty A ct, w e re v erse an d rem an d for a determ i nati on of att orney’s f ees and cost s. ¶ 1 5
. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E P IK E C O U N T Y C H A N C E R Y C O U R T IS

### 8

RE VE RS E D, AN D T HI S CA S E I S R E M AN DE D F OR F UR T HE R P RO CE E DI NG S CONS I S TE NT W I TH T HI S OP I NI ON. AL L C OS TS OF THI S AP P EA L A RE A SSESSE D TO TH E A PPE LL EE S. GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE, ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L A ND FAI R, J J . , CO NCU R. I RVI NG , P. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N THE R ES ULT W I T HOU T S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I N I ON . J A ME S , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .