Opinion ID: 1918744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the chancellor erred in ordering plaintiff's attorney to pay attorneys' fees to defendant under the litigation accountability act of 1988.

Text: ¶ 33. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-55-5 (Supp.1998) provides, in pertinent part that: 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, or that the action, or any claim or defense asserted, was interposed for delay or harassment, or if it finds that an attorney or party unnecessarily expanded the proceedings by other improper conduct including, but not limited to, abuse of discovery procedures available under the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure ... Miss.Code Ann. § 11-55-5(1) (Supp.1998)(emphasis added). Miss.Code Ann. § 11-55-3(a) (Supp.1998) defines without substantial justification as: 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. ¶ 34. Recently, in Scruggs v. Saterfiel, 693 So.2d 924, 927 (Miss.1997), this Court reexamined Miss.Code Ann. § 11-55-3(a) (Supp. 1998): To determine whether a claim is frivolous pursuant to the statute, this Court looks to the definition of frivolous found in M.R.C.P. 11. Leaf River Forest Products, Inc. v. Deakle, 661 So.2d 188, 197 (Miss. 1995). For purposes of Rule 11, a claim is frivolous only when, objectively speaking, the pleader or movant has no hope of success. Stevens v. Lake, 615 So.2d 1177, 1184 (Miss.1993), quoting Tricon Metals & Services, Inc. v. Topp, 537 So.2d 1331, 1335 (Miss.1989); Smith v. Malouf, 597 So.2d 1299, 1303 (Miss.1992)(applying Rule 11 definition to Litigation Accountability Act context). Though a case may be weak or `light-headed,' that is not sufficient to label it frivolous. Deakle, 661 So.2d at 195; Nichols v. Munn, 565 So.2d 1132, 1137 (Miss.1990). ¶ 35. In her Opinion and Judgment, Chancellor Springer considered the factors to be considered before awarding attorneys' fees. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-55-7 (Supp.1998). With respect to John R. Reeves, the Chancellor found that: ... Mr. Reeves should have known of the validation decrees and the case law and reviewed them to determine whether or not substantial justification existed to file a complaint such as this one ... Mr. Reeves testified and argued that there were various claims presented in the complaint and that there was a hope of success in the claims against the City of Meridian and MPIC. Ed Skipper, Director of Finance for the City of Meridian, testified that the City maintained files on the Park Project and Multi Modal Project which were available to the general public. Mr. Reeves had the opportunity to examine the public records of the City of Meridian and the Lauderdale County Chancery Court. Had he examined the records available in the Chancery Clerk's office, he would have learned of the validation proceedings prior to filing this suit. As discussed in this court's opinion and judgment of September 6, 1996, all of the facts complained about in the McBride complaint were in existence prior to the validation decrees, and the validation decrees precluded later challenges... This court is also to consider the extent of any effort made after the commencement of an action to reduce the number of claims being asserted or to dismiss claims that have been found not to be valid. Upon arrival at the initial proceedings in this case, Mr. McBride asked for a continuance. The court granted a continuance so that all parties could review the voluminous documents filed in this matter. Neither Mr. McBride nor Mr. Reeves have made any effort to reduce the number of claims being asserted or to dismiss claims that this court has found not to be valid. In review of the claims asserted, Mr. Reeves and Mr. McBride should have known that the time for filing this suit had expired, but they continued to vigorously assert the claims... As an attorney and legislator, Mr. Reeves is aware of Litigation Accountability Act of 1988 and is expected not file a lawsuit that is without substantial justification. He had every opportunity to research and insure that this claim had a hope of survival; he chose to file this suit and to pursue it even after he learned of the validation proceedings. Even if Mr. Reeves filed this suit with a hope of success, once he learned of the validation proceedings he should have voluntarily dismissed this suit... According to the testimony of Bill Hammack, an attorney for the City, Mr. Reeves admitted that he did not know of the validation proceedings until after the suit was filed. Mr. Reeves took the witness stand himself in defense of this motion. While on the stand, he did not deny the testimony of Mr. Hammack ... Assuming Mr. Reeves did know about the validation judgments, a review of the case law should have dissuaded him from filing the lawsuit. If Mr. Reeves did not know about the validation judgments, he should have made the appropriate investigation and found out about them before filing the lawsuit. Once he did find out about them and reviewed the relevant case law, he should have dismissed his lawsuit. Either way, there is a deficiency in the justification for this lawsuit when Mr. Reeves' conduct is examined ... John Reeves may have been acting in good faith initially, but once he became aware of the validation decrees, the action should have been withdrawn ... ¶ 36. The Chancellor carefully examined each statutory factor, and ultimately sanctioned Reeves in the amount of $9778.93. The Chancellor did all that she was required to do and found that Reeves was in violation of the Litigation Accountability Act. This Court will not say that she abused her discretion in finding so. This assignment of error is meritless.