I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CP - 0 1 3 6 1 - S CT KEN TO N

H AL McN EESE
v. KA TH ER I N E J. McN

EESE (GRA VES)
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 19/ 2012 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M . RO NAL D DOL E AC COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAM AR COUNTY CHA NCERY COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: KEN TON H. M c NEESE ( PRO SE) AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : S HE I L A H. S M AL L W OOD NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 10/ 2013 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , C H A N D L E R A N D K I N G , JJ. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. K ent on M cN ees e appe al s f r om the di s m i s s al of hi s R ul e 60( b) M ot i on forR el i ef f r om J udgm entand O therR el i ef i n t he C hance ry C our tof Lam arC ounty. Fi ndi ng thatthe tr i al
courterr oneous l y rul ed thati tl acke d j uri sdi ct i on t o hearK ent on’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, but al s o concl udi ng thatt he t r i al cour tdi d noterri n denyi ng the mot i on, w e af f i r m i n partand
re v e rs e in p a rt .

### Ken tonb rought hi s m oti on under Mis si ss ippiRuleof Ci vilProc edur e 60( a) and 1 

### 60 (b). Rul e 6 0 (a ) al lo ws co rrection s to b e made ininstan ces of clerical mistak es in jud gments, ord ers, or o ther p arts of th e record . Kento n d oes n ot assert any clerical mistak es; the re for e, for

thesake of

bre vit y and c lari ty, we wi llre fe r t o his motionas a Rule 60(b) Moti on. McN eese v. McN

eese , 119 So. 3d 264 (Mi ss . 2013)
. 2 

### 2 ¶2. O n M ay 1, 2012, K ent on f i l ed hi s R ul e 60( b) M ot i on forR el i ef fr om J udgm entand O r derand O therR el i ef
. T hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w as f i l ed w i th r es pectt o a j ud gm entof 1 di vor ce f r om w hi ch K ent on al r eady ha d per f ect ed an appeal ( “f

i r s tappea l ”)
. A tthatt i m e, h is f ir st ap p ea l w as p en d ing in th is C o u rt . In resp o n se, h is form er w if e K athe ri n e (“ K atye ”), f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s a nd r eques t ed thatK ent on be r equi r ed t o pay att orneys ’ f ees . T he tr i al courtdeni ed K ent on’ s m ot i on f orr el i ef and gr ant ed K atye’ s m oti on t o di s m i s s and
r eques tf orat t orneys ’ fe es on Jul y 20, 2012. T he tr i al courtrul ed thatthe R ul e 60( b) m ot i on
w as n o t t im ely a n d that the c o u rtlack ed jurisd ictio n “ d u e to th e p en d en cy o f th e c ase ’s ap p ea l t o the M issi ssipp i Su p rem e C o u rt . . . . ” T h e tri al co u rtalso fou n d that K en ton ’s
m ot i on w as f

r i vol ous and w i thoutsubs t ant i al j us t i f i cat i on and t hati tw as i nt erpos ed f ordel ay and har as s m entand, ther ef or e, i m pos ed a $1, 000 s anct i on againstK ent on t o be appl i ed tow ard K atye ’s att o rne y s’ fees. K en ton ag ain a p p ea ls ( “se co n d ap p ea l”). S TATEM ENT OF FACTS D i vor ce ¶3. T he cas e hi s t ory pert ai ni ng t o the part i es ’ di vor ce i s t aken f r om thi s C our t ’ s opi ni on
o n K e n to n ’s f

irst a p p e a l: 2

### 3 K ent on and K ather i ne ( “K atye”) M cN ees e w er e m arr i ed on D ece m ber 9, 2006. T hey have one chi l d, H att i e, born i n J anuary 2009. K atye fi l ed for di vor ce on O ct ober1, 2010, al l egi ng habi tual cruel and i nhum an tr eatm ent , or in the alt ern ati v e, i rreco n cil ab le differen ce s. T h e p arti es a g ree d to a tem p o rary cus t ody agr eementpendi ng tr i al
. O n the f i r s tda y of

tr i al , the part i es ent er ed i nt o a cons enta gr eementt o a n i rr econc i l abl e di f f er ence s di vor ce. T hey agr eed t o l etthe courtdet erm i ne chi l d cus t ody, vi s i t at i on, s uppor ti s s ues , di vi s i on of m ar i t al as s et s , and al i m ony. T r i al w as hel d on A pr i l 11, 2011, and J une 1, 2011. T he cha ncel l or re n d e re d a n o p in io n o n S e p tem b e r 2 , 2 0 1 1 , an d g ra n ted th e irre c o n c ilab le di f f er ence s di vor ce pur s uantt o the cons entag reem ent . H e gr ant ed phys i cal cus t ody of

H att i e t o K atye, s etoutthe gui del i nes f orvi s i t at i on, or der ed K ent on t o pay $588 perm onth f orchi l d s uppor t , and d i vide d pr operty betw een the part i es ; al i m ony and att orneys ’ f ees w er e notaw ar ded t o ei therparty. K atye f i l ed a M ot i on t o R econs i der , M ot i on f ora N ew T r i al , ort o A l t er orA m end J udg m ent , and M ot i on f orSt ay of

Pr ocee di ngs t o E nf

or ce a J udgm enton t he gr ound t hatK ent on had fa i l ed t o di s cl os e cert ai n i t ems i n the re q u ire d fin a n c ial d isc lo su re s. K e n to n d id n o t re sp o n d o r fi le a se p a ra te m ot i on t o r econs i der
. A hear i ng on K atye’ s mot i on w as he l d on Sept ember29, 2011. O n O ct ober12, 2011, the courtent er ed an or ders peci f i cal l y addr es s i ng the i s s ues r ai s ed i n K atye’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der , then ent er ed an A m ended O pi ni on and Fi nal J udgm entt o m ake s ever al cl ar i f i cat i ons t o the or i gi nal opi ni on. B y thi s t i m e, K ent on h ad f i r ed hi s att orney. O n O ct ober13, 2011, K e n to n fi le d , pro se , a M ot i on t o R econs i der , M ot i on f ora N ew T r i al , t o A l t er or A m end J udgm ent , and M ot i on f orSt ay of

Pr ocee di ngs t o E nf

or ce a J udg ment , a l l e gi ng tha t : ( 1) h e was r e pr e s e nt e d po or l y by p r i orc ou ns el ; ( 2) K atye and other s w ho t es t i f i ed on herbehal f

had def r auded the courtthr ough thei rper j ur ed t es t i m ony; and ( 3) oppos i ng couns el had vi ol at ed heroath as an att orney and as a muni ci pal j udge. H e r eques t ed a new tr i al , ne w cust ody arr angement s , and thatcos t s and att orneys ’ f ees be as s i gned t o K atye. A tt he end of

O ct ob er , K atye r emar r i ed herf i r s thus band, M i chae l G r aves . U pon l earni ng thatK atye had r emar r i ed, K ent on w ant ed t o w i thdr aw h is co n sen t t o the irreco n cil ab le differen ce s d ivo rce . B e tw ee n N o v em b er 8 a n d 1 7 , K e n to n fi le d , pro se , se v e n su b p o e n a s ; a M o tio n fo r C o n tem p t, Sanct i ons , a nd Rel i ef

; a M ot i on t o E xpunge O r derof W i thhol di ng; a M ot i on t o E xpunge C ons entA gr eementt o I rr econc i l abl e D i f f er ence s D i vor ce; and a

### This appe alis fi le d pro sebyKenton . Kenton ’s issues an d b rief are difficu lt to 3 

### discern
. 4 C ross -C o m p lai n t an d C o u n ter-C o m p lai n t for D ivo rce . A h ea ri n g o n K en ton ’s m ot i on t o r econs i dert ook pl ace on N ovember21, 2011. O n J anuary 4, 2012, the cha ncel l orent er ed a Fi nal O r derdenyi ng K ent on’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der an d d ism issi n g o r d en y ing all o ther m o ti o n s o n the g rou n d s o f r es j udi cata and es t oppel
. K ent on f

i l ed a N ot i ce of

A ppeal on J anuary 30, 2012.
DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he chancel l or properl y di s m i s s ed K ent on’ s M ot i on f or R el i ef f rom Ju d gm ent and O rder and O t her R el i ef f or L ack of Jur i s di c t i on. 3 ¶4. A chan cel l or’ s den i al of a po st -tri al m oti on un der R ule 6 0(b) i s revi ew ed for ab use
o f d is c re tio n . City o

f J a c kso n v. J

a c kso n O a ks L td

. P ’sh ip , 86 0 S o. 2d 30 9, 31 1 (M i ss. 2 0 0 3 ). R ule 60( b) Moti on f

orR elief f r om Judgm ent

and O r derand O therR elief ¶5 . T h e tr ial co u rten tered i ts o rde r den y ing K en ton ’s R u le 6 0 (b ) M o tio n F o r R e lief, g ran ti n g K atye ’s m o ti o n to d ism iss, a n d issu ing sa n cti o n s o n Ju ly 2 0 , 2 0 1 2
. T h e tri al co u rt
ex p lai n ed that, b ec au se K en ton h ad p erfec ted h is f ir st ap p ea l o f th e d ivo rce , the tri al co u rt
w as w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derhi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. K ent on ar gues that , by f ai l i ng to g ran t h is R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n , th e tr ial co u rt“d isplay ed ineq u ali ty an d inco n sist en cy . ” In
s uppor tof

hi s ar gum ent , K ent on poi nt s t o the A gr eed O r der , ent er ed on J une 19, 2012. ¶6
. I n t hat A gr e e d O r de r , the tr i a l c ou r t s pe c i f i e d ho w the Fi na l J ud gmen t of D i vo r ce (e n ter e d O c to b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 1 ) w a s to b e c a rrie d o u t. T h e A g re e d O rd e r sp e c ified w h e n c h ild

### 5

su p p o rt a n d m e d ica l-in su ra n c e re im b u rse m e n ts w e re to b e p a id a n d h o w e a c h p a rty w a s to
s at i s f y hi s and herr es pect i ve paymentobl i gat i ons f ordel i nquentpr operty t axes undert he O ct ober12, 2011, O r der
. K ent on’ s ar gu m ent seem s t o r es ton w hathe bel i eves t o be di s par at e and unf

ai rtr eatm entby the tr i al c our ti n ent er i ng the A gr eed O r derbutdi s m i s s i ng hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on . T he C our tf ur therrul ed the mot i on w as unt i m el y and l acke d ju ri s d ic tio n . ¶7 . O rdin aril y , on ce a no ti ce of ap p ea l is fi led, j u ri sd ict ion tran sfers fr o m th e tri al co u rt t o the appe l l at e court , ther eby r emovi ng the tr i al court ’ s authori t y t o am end, m odi f y, or
re c o n s id e r i ts ju d g m e n t. Co rp o ra te M g m t., In c . v. G re e n e Co u n ty , 23 So. 3d 454, 460 ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. H ow ever , K ent on r eques t ed r el i ef underR ul e 60( b) of

t he M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . ¶8. T hi s C our t has expl ai ned that “the adopt i on of M i s s . R . C i v. P. 60 conf err ed ‘ l i m i t ed
con c urr e ntj ur i s di c t i on o n the tr i a l c ou r tt o gr a ntr e l i e f f r om a j ud gmen te ve n tho ug h a n appea l has been pe r f

ect ed. ’ ” G r i

f f in v. Arm ana , 679 So. 2d 1049, 1050 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng I n re E s tate of

Mor eland v. R iley , 5 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 4 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ) (cit ati o n o m itted)). R ul e 60( b) al l ow s a party t o s eek r el i ef f r om a j ud gm entoror deri n i ns t ance s of “mi s t ake, i nadvert ence , new l y di s cover ed evi dence , fr aud, et c. ” M
. R . C
. P. 60(b)
. “So l ong as [ K ent on] compl i ed w i th the r equi r ement s of Rul e 60( b) , pe r f

ect i on of hi s a ppeal di d notdi ves tthe tr i al j udge of author i ty t o vaca t e [ hi s ] j udgm ent . ” G riffin , 6 7 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 5 0 . A p a rty m a y file hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on di r ect l y w i t h the tr i al courtnotm or e than s i x m onths af t ert he j udgm ent , how ever , once “ the r ecor d has been t rans m i t t ed t o the appe l l at e courtand the

### 6

act i on r emai ns pendi ng ther ei n, ” l eave t o m ake the mot i on m us tbe obt ai ned f r om t he
a p p e lla te c o u rt . M .R .C .P . 6 0 (b ). ¶9. T he tr i al c our tr el i ed on Rul e 4( d) t o f i nd that , beca us e K ent on’ s Rul e 60( b) m ot i on
w as notf

i l ed w i thi n t en days , i tw as unt i m el y. R ul e 4( d) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e pr ovi des a l i s tof pos t - tr i al mot i ons w hi ch, i f t i m el y f i l ed, w i l l t ol l the tim e fo r filin g a N o tice o f A p p e a l. R u le 4 (d ) sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: I f a ny p a r ty f

i l e s a t i mel y mot i on o f

a typ e s pe c i f

i e d i mm e di a t e l y be l ow t he t i m e f ora ppeal f

oral l part i es runs f

r om the entry of

the or derdi s pos i ng of

the l as ts uch mot i on out s t andi ng. T hi s pr ovi s i on appl i es t o a t i m el y m ot i on under the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l P r ocedur e. . . ( 5) f orr el i ef underR ul e 60 i f

the m ot i on i s fi l ed no l at erthan 10 days af t erthe entry of

j udgm ent . A not i ce of ap p ea l f il ed after an n o u n ce m en t or e n try o f th e jud g m en t bu t befo re di s pos i t i on of

any of the above m ot i ons i s i nef f ect i ve t o appeal f

r om the j udgm entoror der , orpartther eof , s peci f i ed i n the not i ce of

appea l , unt i l the entr y of the or derdi s pos i ng of t he l asts uch mot i on out s t andi ng. N otw i ths t andi ng t he pr ovi s i ons of A ppel l at e R ul e 3( c) , a val i d not i ce of appea l i s ef fect i ve to app eal fr om an o rderdis po si ng of any o f the ab ov e m oti on s. M . R . A
. P. 4( d)
. Thi s Courtf i nds thatRul e 4( d) a ppl i es t o the s us pens i on of the dea dl i ne by
w hi ch t o f

i l e a N ot i ce of

A ppeal and does notcr eat e a de adl i ne by w hi ch t o f i l e a Rul e 60( b)
m ot i on. ¶10. K ent on fi l ed his m oti on for r el i ef on M ay 1, 2012, w i thi n s i x m onths of the f i nal j udgm entof

J anuary 2, 2012. L eave of thi s C ourtw as notr equi r ed, be caus e the R ul e 60( b)
m ot i on w as f

i l ed pri ort o the Lam arC ounty C hance ry C our tm ai l i ng the r ecor d t o t he appel l at e courton M ay 14, 2012. B eca us e K ent on’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w as t i m el y and w as filed a fte r h is N o tice o f A p p e a l, ye t p rio r to th e tr a n sm itt a l o f th e re c o rd to th e a p p e llate
court , w e f

i nd the tr i al courterr ed i n f i ndi ng thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on.

### 7

A gr eed O r der ¶11. K ent on ar gues thatt he t r i al cour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert he A gr eed O r deron J une 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 , an d th a t th e c o u rt e x h ib ited b ias b y e n te ri n g th e A g re e d O rd e r, y e t d e n y in g h is M ot i on f orR el i ef
. A l t ho ugh t he tr i al courtf ound i tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o gr antthe r el i ef K ent on r eques t ed, i tdi d notdi s cus s w hetheri thad err ed by ent er i ng the A gr eed O r deraf t er th e N o tic e o f A p p e a l h a d b e e n fi le d
. ¶12. W e f

i nd that , al though an appea l w as pendi ng, the tr i al court had j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er the A gr eed O r der
. W hen an appeal i s w i thouts uper s edea s bond, as w as the appe al ati s s ue in th is c a s e , a n a p p e lle e m a y p ro c e e d to e n fo rc e a ju d g m e n t. McN eil v. Hes ter , 753 So. 2d 10 57, 1076 ( M i s s . 2000)
. H ow ever , i f “a tr i al court ’ s or derbr oadens , amends, m odi f i es,
vaca t es , cl ar i f

i es orr ehea r s a dec r ee, ‘ i tm us tbe vaca t ed as nul l and voi d beca us e i texce eds the s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on of the l ow ercourt . ’ ” Co r

p o r a te M

g m t., I n c ., 23 So. 3d at460 ( ci t i ng Matte rof

Estate of

Mor e land , 537 So. 2d 1345 , 1348 ( M i s s . 1989)
. T he A gr eed O rd e r sp e c ified w h e n c h ild su p p o rt a n d m e d ica l-in su ra n c e re im b u rse m e n ts w e re to b e p a id and how eac h party w as t o s at i s f y hi s orherr es pect i ve paym entobl i gat i ons f ordel i nquent pr operty t axes undert he O ct ober12, 2011, orde r . T he A gr eed O r derm er el y s peci f i ed how t he pr e vi ou s J ud gmen tof D i vo r c e s ho ul d b e s a t i s f i e d. The r e f

or e , the c ha nc e l l ordi d n ot b ro a d e n , a m e n d , m o d if y , v a c a te , o r c la ri fy th e ju d g m e n t th ro u g h th e A g re e d O rd e r. See Cor por ate M

gm t . , I nc. , 2 3 S o . 3 d a t 4 6 0
. ¶1 3. Fur t her m or e, t he tr i a l c ou r td i d no ts ho w b i a s b y e nt e r i ng the Agr e e d O r der and d e n y in g K e n to n ’s M o tio n fo r R e lief. A n a g re e d o rd e r, o r c o n se n t ju d g m e n t, i s e ss e n tially

### 8

a contr act , al though i ti s “gi ven the s ame f or ce a nd ef

f ectas , j udgm ent s r ender ed af t er l i t i gat i on. ” G u th rie v. G u th rie , 1 0 2 S o . 2 d 3 8 1 , 3 8 3 (M iss . 1 9 5 8 ); see al so Rile y v. W i gg ins , 908 So. 2d 893, 899 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005) ( fi nd i ng tha t , “[ a] l though an agr eed or deror
cons entdecr ee i s i n t he natur e of a cont r act , i ti s al s o a j udgm entof the i s s ui ng court , s ubj ect t o the court ’ s enf

or cementpow er s ”)
. T hi s C our thas s ai d that“the pow erof the courtt o s i gn
a c o n s e n t ju d g m e n t d e p e n d s u p o n th e u n q u a li f ie d c o n s e n t o f t h e p a rt ie s th e re to . . . .” S a m p les v. D a v is , 904 So. 2d 1061, 1064 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng G uil f or d C ount

y v. E l ler , 553 S. E . 2d 235, 236 (N
. C
. C t . A pp. 2001)
. K ent on cons ent ed t o the t erm s of the A gr eed O r der
. H i s c l ai m thatthe tr i al c our te xhi bi t ed bi as by ent er i ng the A gr eed O r derand denyi ng h is M o tio n fo r R e lief is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . W het her t he chancel l or er red i n denyi ng K ent on’ s reques t f or f i n d i n g s o f

f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w. ¶14. O n J ul y 25, 2012, K ent on f i l ed a R eques t f

or F i nd i ng s of Fact s and C oncl us i ons of L a w to s u p p o rt th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s o rd e r d is m is s in g h is M o tio n fo r R e lie f a n d S a n c tio n s . K ent on al s o r eques t ed concl us i ons of l aw w i th r egar d t o the A gr eed O r der
. W e r evi ew a tr i al
co u rt ’s de cisi o n n o t t o m ak e sp ec if ic fi n d ing s o f fact an d co n clus ion s of l aw o n an ab u se-o fd is c re tio n s ta n d a rd
. Cox v. Cox , 976 So. 2d 869, 874 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng T ricon Metals & Ser vs . , I nc. v. T opp , 516 So. 2d 236, 239 ( M i s s . 1987) )
. R ul e 52 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vil P rocedu re pr ov i des: (a) E ffect. In a ll ac tio n s tried u p o n th e fa c ts w ith o u t a ju ry , the trial c o u rt sh a ll u p o n th e re q u e st o f a n y p a rty . . . fin d th e fa c ts s p e c ifica lly a n d s tate se p a ra tely i t s concl us i ons of

l aw ther eon and a j udgm ents hal l be ent er ed ac cor di ngl y.

### 9

(b ) A m en d m en t. U po n m oti on of a party f i l ed notl at erthan t en days af t er e n try o f j u d g me n to re n tr y o f

f i n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s , o ru p o n i t s o wn i ni t i at i ve dur i ng the s ame per i od, t he courtm ay amend i t s f i ndi ngs orm ake addi t i onal f

i ndi ngs and may am end the j udgm entacc or di ngl y. M . R . C
. P. 52. T he tr i al courtdeni ed K ent on’ s r eques tf orf i ndi ngs of

f actand conc l us i ons of l aw , f i nd i ng n o l a w f

ul b a s i s f ors uc h a r e qu e s ta f

t e ra n A gr e e d O r de r . Furthe r , the t r i al
courtnot ed thati t s O r derD enyi ng D ef endant ’ s 60( b) M ot i on f orR el i ef f r om J udgm entand O therR el i ef

and G r ant i ng Pl ai nt i f

f’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s and D i r ect i ng S anct i ons cont ai ned fi n d in g s o f f

a c t a n d c o n c lu s io n s o f l a w . ¶15. W e f

i nd the tr i al court di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on, beca us e adequa t e f i ndi ngs of

f act and conc l us i ons of

l aw w er e pr ovi ded i n the tr i al court ’ s or derdenyi ng K ent on’ s R ul e 60( b) M ot i on f

orRel i e f f r om J ud gmen t . Furthe r mor e , K e nt on ha s c i t e d n o a utho r i ty w hi ch
r equi r es a cha ncel l ort o pr ovi de f i ndi ngs of

f actorconcl us i ons of

l aw t o s uppor tan agr eed
o rd e r. W e fin d th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . W het her t he chancel l or erred i n hol di ng K ent on i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

C i vi l P roce dure 11. ¶16. T hi s C our tr evi ew s a tr i al j udge’ s aw ar d of sancti on s un der R ule 11 f orabus e of d is c re tio n . I

n re Spencer , 9 8 5 S o . 2 d 3 3 0 , 3 3 7 (M iss
. 2 0 0 8 ). “ In the a b se n c e o f a d e fin ite and f i r m convi ct i on t hatthe courtbel ow comm i tt ed a c l earerr orof j udgm enti n t he
c o n c l u s i o n i tr e a c h e d u p o n w e i g h i n g o f r e l e v a n tf

a c t o r s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e c o u r t 's i m pos i t i on of s anct i ons w i l l be af f i r m ed. ” I d. ( quot i ng W

ys s br od v. W

itt jen , 798 So. 2d 352, 357 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) )
. Rul e 11 s t at es that , i f the tr i al courtf

i nds a mot i on or pl eadi ng “i s f

r i vol ous ori s f

i l ed f orthe purpos e of

har as s m entordel ay, the courtm ay or der

### 10

s uch a pa r t y . . . t o pay t o the oppos i ng party . . . r eas onabl e expe ns es . . . . ” M
. R . C
. P. 11. A c la im is f

r iv o lo u s w h e n th e c la im a n t h a s n o h o p e o f s u c c e s s . See L eaf R i ver Forest P ro d s. v. D e a k k le , 6 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 6 -97 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶1 7 . T h e tr ial co u rt fou n d that K en ton ’s R u le 6 0 (b) m o ti o n w as fri v o lou s. T h e tr ial co u rt f ur therf ound K ent on’ s Rul e 60( b) mot i on w as w i thouts ubs t ant i al j us t i f i cat i on, thati tw as i nt erpos ed f

ordel ay and ha r as s m ent , and thatK ent on s houl d have know n thathe coul d not
r el i t i gat e hi s di vor ce thr ough hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w hi l e the Fi nal J udgm entw as on appea l bef or e t hi s C our t . T he t r i al cour torde r ed K ent on t o pay $1, 000 t o K atye f orr eas onabl e f

ees and cos t s i n def

endi ng the mot i on. ¶18. K ent on cl ai m s thatw hen he f i l ed hi s M ot i on f

orR el i ef , he bel i eved the tr i al court had j ur i s di ct i on beca us e i thad ent er ed an A gr eed O r ders ubs equentto his fi l i ng a N ot i ce of A p p e a l. T h e e n try o f th e A g re e d O rd e r c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n th e b a sis fo r h is filin g h is
m ot i on beca us e hi s m ot i on w as f i l ed bef ore the A gr eed O r derw as ent er ed. T he i s s ues
as s ert ed i n hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on al r eady ha d been rul ed on by the pr evi ous chanc el l orand f ound t o be w i thoutmer i t . . I n f act , K ent on had f

i l ed, pos tdi vor ce, s even s ubpoenas , t hr ee
m ot i ons , and a Cros s - C om pl ai ntand C ount er - C om pl ai ntf orD i vor ce, w hi ch w er e rul ed on pr i ort o the f

i r s tappea l
. T he t r i al j udge ( C hance l l orD ol eac ) s t at ed thathe “[ w oul d] notundo
ru lin g s b y C h a n c e llo r F a ir sim p ly b e c a u se a lit ig a n t w o u ld lik e to try fo r a m o re fa v o ra b le
rul i ng. ” The t r i al courtal s o expl ai ned thatK ent on w as as ki ng the chanc el l ort o “r evi ew t he f i ndi ngs , rul i ngs and j udgm ent s pr evi ous l y ent er ed by C han cel l or Fai r ” and that“[ s ] uch a
r eques ti s outof

or der , notal l ow ed by l aw underthe ci r cum st ances of r ecor d bef or e [ the]

### The Cour t of Appea ls denie d re hearing on August 21, 2012. This Court

grante d 4 

### certiorari o n N ov ember 1 9, 2 01 2. Thereafter, the Co urt dismissedcertiorari and th e mand ate issuedonFeb ruary21 , 20 13
. 11 courtatthi s t i m e, w oeful l y m i s pl ace d, and f r i vol ous . D ef

endantand M ovantdoes notget
a ‘d o o v e r’ b e c a u s e th is C h a n c e llo r h a s re p la c e d C h a n c e llo r F a irin th is c a s e .” ¶19. T hi s C our tf

i nds no abus e of

di s cr et i on i n the aw ar d of s anct i ons agai ns tK ent on. T he iss u e s p re se n ted b y K e n to n a lre a d y h a d b e e n a d d re ss e d b y th e trial c o u rt a n d w e re fo u n d to be w i thoutm er i t . T her ef or e, K ent on coul d have no hope f ors ucce s s , and the mot i on w as fr i vo l ou s. I V . W het her t he chancel l or er red i n denyi ng t he def endant’ s m ot i on f or a new t ri al due t o hi s l ack of know l edge of

t he cas e. ¶20. K ent on ar gues that , beca us e the cha ncel l ordeni ed hi s r eques tf orf i ndi ngs of

f act and concl us i ons of

l aw , t he chanc el l ordi d notre vi ew t he cas e thor oughl y and w as notcompet ent t o r evi ew hi s m ot i on. H e ar gues thathe i s e nt i t l ed t o a ne w tr i al on hi s m ot i on bas ed on the C our tof A ppeal s opi ni on i n Boatwri ght v. Boatwri

ght , ___ So. 3d. ___ , 2011 W L 5027191 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. O ct . 4, 2011)
. In Boatwri ght , the C o u rto f A p p ea ls f o u n d that a tri al co u rt 4
err ed in sugg est i ng that the p art i es appe al rather than con du ct i ng a new tri al on the m eri t s. I d. at*2. T he C our tof

A ppeal s e xpl ai ned that , w hen a j udge i s unabl e t o per f or m the dut i es t o be per f

or m ed by the court , “ then any otherj udge r egul ar l y s i t t i ng i n oras s i gned underl aw t o the courti n w hi ch the act i on w as tr i ed m ay per f or m thos e dut i es ; buti f

s uch otherj udge is s a tis fi e d th a t h e c a n n o t p e rf o rm th o s e d u tie s , h e m a y in h is d is c re tio n g ra n t a n e w tr ia l.” I d. ( quot i ng M . R . C
. P. 63( b) )
. K ent on’ s as s ert i on thatC hance l l orD ol eac f ai l ed t o r evi ew t he

### 12

cas e thor oughl y bef

or e denyi ng hi s M ot i on f orR el i ef i s nots uppor t ed by the r ecor d. T he
m o tio n h e a rin g tra n sc rip t, as w e ll a s th e o rd e r d e n y in g K e n to n ’s M o tio n fo r R e lief, in d ica te thatthe cha ncel l orhad s uf f i ci ent l y revi ew ed the r ecor d i n the ca s e and ha d pr epar ed
su ffic ien tly to ru le o n th e m o tio n . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. V . W h e th e r th e c h a n c e llo r e r r e d in fi n d in g th e d iv o r c e w a s fi n a l. ¶21. K ent on appea r s t o ar gue, as he di d i n hi s fi rs t app eal , t hat hi s di vor ce w as notf i nal and, ther ef

or e, K atye comm i t t ed bigam y w hen s he r emar r i ed herf i r s thus band on O ct ober 29, 2011, w hi l e K ent on’ s pos t - tr i al m ot i on ( f i l ed O ct ober13, 2011) w as pendi ng. R ul e 62 pr ovi des that“ no e xecut i on s hal l be i s s ued upon a j udgm entnors hal l pr ocee di ngs be t aken f ori t s e nf or cementunt i l the expi r at i on of t en days af

t erthe l at erof

i t s entry orthe di s pos i t i on
o f a m o tio n f

o r n e w tr ia l.” M .R .C .P . 6 2 (a ). R u le 6 2 (b ) p ro v id e s th a t “ [i]n its d is c re tio n . .

. the courtm ay s t ay the exe cut i on of orany pr ocee di ngs t o enf or ce a j udgm entpendi ng t he d ispo sit ion o f a m o ti o n to alter o r a m e n d a jud g m en t m ad e p u rsua n t t o R u le 59 , o r of a
m o ti o n for reli ef fro m a jud g m en t or o rde r m ad e p u rsua n t t o R u le 60 (b).” A s the tr ial co u rt expl ai ned, i n i t s or derdenyi ng K ent on’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, “a s t ay of exec ut i on on a jud g m en t i s n o t th e sa m e thin g as a stay o f the jud g m en t i tsel f. ” T h e tr ial co u rtd id n o t err i n it s di scussi on of this i ssue, and the is sue w as addressed by this C ou rti n K enton’s fi rs t
a p p e a l. See McN

eese v. McN

eese , 

### 119 So. 3d 264 (M iss . 2 0 1 3 ). W e fin d th a t th e iss u e is
w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON

### 13

¶22. Fi ndi ng no r ever s i bl e err or , w e af f i r m the chanc el l or ’ s deni al of K ent on’ s M ot i on f

or R e lief a n d a w a rd o f a tto rn e y s’ f e e s u n d e r R u le 1 1 o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re . ¶ 2 3
. AF F I RM ED . DI CKI NS ON AND RA NDOL P H, P . J J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.