Opinion ID: 1619783
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is Moses Entitled to Attorneys' Fees?

Text: ¶ 40. Moses requested that this Court award attorneys' fees because he claims the case against him was wholly without merit. He urges that the Baileys have continually misrepresented key facts to the Court, and details at length those supposed misrepresentations. The chancellor denied an award of fees. ¶ 41. The standard of review regarding attorneys' fees is the abuse of discretion standard, and such awards must be supported by credible evidence. Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Cook, 832 So.2d 474, 486 (Miss.2002). While the law underpinning this case may be simple, its history is highly involved, requiring the trial court to navigate in factually deep waters. Ultimately, the declaratory judgment action brought by the Estate of Kemp was joined by and benefited Moses, as it supported his claim to a one-third share in the proceeds from any sale of the Florida property. The claims brought against Kemp and Moses attempted to invalidate the contract and any ability of Kemp and Moses to recover under it. The Baileys' complaint essentially served as an answer to the complaint of Kemp and Moses, especially after the two actions were consolidated. ¶ 42. Accordingly, the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant attorneys' fees to Moses.