Covington v. McDaniel, 126 So. 3d 49

This is a consolidated appeal from three judgments involving Covington's claims against an estate in probate and related chancery and circuit court actions.
Covington, as a judgment creditor of potential heirs, sought to treat himself as a creditor of the Estate arising from a 2007 tort action that named heirs but did not obtain a judgment against the decedent.
Covington amended the 2007 action in 2009 to add the Estate, but service on the deceased Darryl Sr. and timely service on the Estate were defective, leading to dismissal without prejudice.
In 2009 Covington filed a new tort action against the Estate; the circuit court dismissed this 2009 action with prejudice for lack of proper service and due to expiration of the statute of limitations.
The chancery court proceedings included Linda’s attempts to strike the will and Covington’s attempts to contest it, with sanctions imposed against Covington’s counsel for frivolous filings.
The circuit court awarded attorney’s fees to the Estate under Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act, and Covington appeals these rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to contest the will	Covington, as a judgment creditor of potential heirs, is an interested party with standing.	Covington lacks direct pecuniary interest in the Estate and is not a creditor or heir; thus no standing.	Covington lacks standing; dismissals affirmed
Sanctions against Covington's counsel	Rule 11 sanctions were improper or excessive.	Sanctions were appropriate due to frivolous and harassing filings and misrepresentations.	Sanctions affirmed; no abuse of discretion
Dismissal of the 2009 circuit court action for service and statute	Court should allow extension for service and not dismiss on limitations grounds.	No good cause shown; service was improper and deadline expired; dismissal proper.	Dismissal with prejudice affirmed; no good cause shown
Attorney’s fees under Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act	Fees to be denied or reduced; covington's filings merited consideration but not fee-shifting.	Fees necessary to deter frivolous filings and misrepresentations.	Fees awarded; no abuse of discretion

Vincent v. Creel, 80 So.3d 859 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for findings of fact)
In re Spencer, 985 So.2d 330 (Miss. 2008) (sanctions standard under Rule 11)
Walton v. Walton, 44 So.3d 1035 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (standards for sanctions on filings)
Stutts v. Miller, 37 So.3d 1 (Miss. 2010) (good-cause requirement and service extension under Rule 4(h))
Holmes v. Coast Transit Auth., 815 So.2d 1183 (Miss. 2002) (excusable neglect standard for service extensions)
Broussard, 19 So.3d 821 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (test for frivolous filings under Rule 11 and Litigation Accountability Act)
Illinois Central R.R. v. Broussard, 19 So.3d 821 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (same standard for frivolous filings)
Garrett v. Bohannon, 621 So.2d 935 (Miss. 1993) (definition of interested parties in probate)
Welch Roofing & Constr., Inc. v. Farina, 99 So.3d 274 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (good-cause analysis for service and tolling)