Opinion ID: 865989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: ¶44. The parties raised these issues, which have been edited, combined, and reordered for clarity and brevity.8 I. Whether the chancellor erred in awarding attorney fees and expenses to Autry, Pittman, and MacKenzie. II. Whether the chancellor erred in granting Brown’s Rule 60 motion, reducing the fee award to Autry and ordering disgorgement of fees. III. Whether the chancellor erred in denying Brown’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Autry. IV. Whether the chancellor erred in awarding fiduciary compensation to Colleen’s estate for her services as coexecutor of William’s estate. V. Whether the chancellor erred in ordering Gerald, as trustee of the family trust, to transfer the Elvis property out of the trust. VI. Whether the chancellor erred in denying prejudgment interest upon the judgments awarded to William’s estate. VII. Whether the chancellor erred in denying Gerald’s motion for order requiring Dennis, individually and as coexecutor of Colleen’s estate, to account for estate funds and property. 8 The following issues arose from Gerald’s 2007 appeal: grant of attorney fees to Autry, Pittman, and MacKenzie; award of executor fees to Colleen’s estate; denial of petition to require Dennis to account; order to transfer the Elvis property; denial of award of prejudgment interest. These issues arose from Colleen’s estate’s cross-appeal: discontinuance of attorney fees to Autry; order to pay estate taxes from assets other than the marital trust; lack of award of postjudgment interest. These issues arose from the 2009 appeal filed by Colleen’s estate, Billy, Dennis, and Shannon: reduction in fee award and order to disgorge; award of fees to Brown since 2007; attorney fees for this appeal. These issues arose from Gerald’s cross-appeal: award of additional attorney fees; denial of Rule 11 motion; attorney fees for this appeal. 23 VIII. Whether the chancellor erred in denying Colleen’s estate’s motion to allow payment of estate taxes from marital trust funds rather than from her estate’s funds. IX. Whether the chancellor erred in granting fees to Brown for services provided after July 3, 2007, and in denying an award of fees to Autry for services provided after September 20, 2007. X. Whether the chancellor erred in failing to order postjudgment interest on the awards of attorney fees and executor commissions. XI. Whether this Court should award the parties their attorney fees and expenses incurred in bringing and defending this appeal.