Guardianship of Buckalew v. Buccluch
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 95
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Ruby Buckalew suffered a stroke and Alzheimer’s, later moved to Mississippi under Diane’s care, with Ruby’s house conveyed to Diane reserving a life estate for Ruby.
- Chancery Court appointed James Buckalew as guardian of Ruby’s person and estate in 2006.
- James removed Ruby from Diane’s care and sought Diane to vacate Ruby’s property, alleging Diane’s occupancy was part of a care arrangement.
- Diane answered and counterclaimed that the eviction action did not constitute a guardianship matter and that James failed to obtain court authority to file the action, seeking removal of James as guardian based on alleged conflicts of interest and failure to protect Ruby’s person and estate.
- The court dismissed Diane’s counterclaim to remove James; James sought Rule 11 sanctions claiming Diane’s pleadings were frivolous and harassing.
- Chancellor found Diane had some hope of success on some issues but held the counterclaim frivolous and awarded sanctions totaling $800 in attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Diane’s counterclaim was frivolous under Rule 11 | Buckalew argues Diane’s pleadings had no support and were intended to harass or delay. | Buckalew contends Diane had some reasonable hope of success on portions of her defenses and counterclaim. | Sanctions upheld; counterclaim deemed frivolous. |
| Whether the chancellor properly found Diane had some hope of success on parts of her defenses | Buckalew asserts no substantial basis for success existed for Diane’s defenses to eviction and guardianship issues. | Buckalew contends Diane did have some hope of success based on discovery responses and procedural compliance. | Court affirmed that Diane had some hope of success on some issues but still held the counterclaim frivolous. |
| Whether the amount of sanctions ($800) fairly compensates for defense against a frivolous counterclaim | Buckalew seeks additional attorney’s fees beyond $800 based on hours and rates incurred. | Buckalew argues the award does not adequately reflect time and expenses; seeks higher amount. | Affirmed sanction amount at $800; no abuse of discretion found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. Walton, 44 So.3d 1035 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (sanction review for frivolous pleading; proof of fees required)
- Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Broussard, 19 So.3d 821 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (frivolous pleading requires no reasonable hope of success)
- City of Picayune v. S. Reg'l Corp., 916 So.2d 510 (Miss.2005) (standard for reviewing trial court’s factual findings on sanctions)
- Eatman v. City of Moss Point, 809 So.2d 591 (Miss.2000) (deference to trial court’s factual determinations in sanctions)
- Brown v. Mississippi Dept. of Human Servs., 806 So.2d 1004 (Miss.2000) (standard for agency- and guardianship-related proceedings; factual support required)
- Randolph v. Lambert, 926 So.2d 941 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (Rule 11 sanctions framework and harassment/delay purpose)
- Wyssbrod v. Wittjen, 798 So.2d 352 (Miss.2001) (appellate review of sanctions; abuse of discretion standard)
- In re Guardianship of Savell v. Renfroe, 876 So.2d 308 (Miss.2004) (deference to trial court findings in guardianship context)