Opinion ID: 1755419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in assessing sanctions against the plaintiff and his attorney for filing the instant case?

Text: In conjunction with his motion for summary judgment, Malouf moved for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the Litigation Accountability Act of 1988 as codified at Miss. Code Ann. sec. 11-55-1 to 11-55-15. Section 11-55-5 provides in pertinent part: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, in any civil action commenced or appealed in any court of record in this state, the court shall award, as part of its judgment and in addition to any other costs otherwise assessed, reasonable attorney's fees and costs against any party or attorney if the court, upon the motion of any party or on its own motion, finds that an attorney or party brought an action, or asserted any claim or defense, that is without substantial justification. Section 11-55-3 defines without substantial justification as follows: (a) Without substantial justification, when used with reference to any action, claim, defense or appeal, including without limitation any motion, means that it is frivolous, groundless in fact or in law, or vexatious, as determined by the court. The chancellor below found that Plaintiff and his attorney knew or should have known that the claims brought against Defendants in this cause were without merit and could not be sustained inasmuch as Plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the real property in question. The chancellor further held: Plaintiff and his attorney knowingly and wilfully maintained their complaint without substantial justification as contemplated by Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-55-3 and that under the circumstances of this case should be held jointly and severally liable for the attorney's fees incurred by Defendants in the defense of this cause in the amount of $2,480. The chancellor manifestly erred in finding that Robert Smith and his attorney pursued the instant action without substantial justification. First, the action is not frivolous. In the Rule 11 context, this Court has stated that a pleading or motion is frivolous ... only when, objectively speaking, the pleader or movant has no hope of success. Bean v. Broussard, 587 So.2d 908, 912 (Miss. 1991); Tricon Metals & Service, Inc. v. Topp, 537 So.2d 1331, 1336 (Miss. 1989). It cannot be said that Robert Smith and his attorney had no hope of success in the case sub judice. Even though the instant cause of action was effectively barred by the February judgment at the time the chancellor awarded sanctions, Smith and his attorney had hope that this Court would remove the bar by reversing Smith. That hope proved well-founded. Secondly, Robert Smith's claim is clearly not groundless in fact or in law. In fact, Smith is entitled to prevail if he can prove the allegations contained in his complaint. Regarding Section 11-55-3's third characterization of without substantial justification, no one has alleged, nor does the record in any wise reflect, that the instant action was filed for purposes of vexation. Robert Smith's cause of action simply does not fit within the parameters of Section 11-55-3. Accordingly, we hold that the chancellor's award of attorney's fees against Robert Smith and his attorney was error.