Michael J. Brown v. Thomas A. McClinton, Jr., 157 So. 3d 862

Background

In 1999, 16-year-old DeMon McClinton inherited over $3 million; his father Thomas McClinton Jr. was appointed guardian in 2000 and retained attorney Michael J. Brown to assist.
The guardianship closed in 2006 after a final accounting and payment of some authorized fees, but later investigation revealed large unexplained shortfalls and alleged unauthorized loans/transfers.
A special master (CPA-attorney Paul Rogers) found roughly $3.44 million to be accounted for, with large amounts unaccounted for and significant sums attributed to Brown, McClinton, Lottie Campbell, and Linus Shackelford.
The chancery court (1) found Brown in contempt for failing to account, making fraudulent accountings, unauthorized loans/withdrawals, conversion and embezzlement, and ordered incarceration until repayment; and (2) found McClinton and Campbell liable for substantial sums and in contempt for failing to repay, with incarceration conditioned on repayment (stayed on bond/appeal).
On appeal, this Court affirmed Brown’s contempt finding (and reopening of the guardianship under Rule 60(b)(6) for fraud on the court), affirmed that McClinton and Campbell were in contempt, but reversed/remanded regarding the contempt sanctions to require specific findings on credits, settlements, recalculation, and inability to pay.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reopening guardianship under Rule 60(b) for fraud on the court (Brown)	Reopening was justified because Brown’s 2006 accounting and fee request were fraudulent and concealed guardianship assets	Brown argued Rule 60(b) fraud time limits and lack of particularized fraud pleading barred reopening	Court: Affirmed reopening under Rule 60(b)(6); fraud on the court exception permits relief despite time lapse
Recusal of chancellor (Brown)	Brown argued appearance of partiality due to chancellor’s friendship with opposing counsel	Chancellor’s friendship was disclosed but not shown to be substantial; Brown failed to follow procedural recusal steps	Court: Denied recusal; no objective basis shown and procedural defects in Brown’s motion
Statute of limitations for claims against guardian/third parties (McClinton, Campbell)	McClinton/Campbell argued claims were time-barred (5-year guardian statute; 3-year general limitation)	Plaintiffs argued reopening/tolling and latent discovery of misuse tolled/allowed timely claims	Court: Statutes did not bar relief here—reopening tolled and discovery of misconduct justified timely filings
Civil contempt sanctions and incarceration without specific findings on ability to pay (McClinton, Campbell)	Plaintiffs sought enforcement; chancery ordered repayment and incarceration until payment	Defendants argued chancery failed to make findings on ability to pay, credits, settlements, and imposed potential indefinite jail for a civil debt	Court: Affirmed contempt findings but reversed/remanded to recalculate amounts (credits/settlements) and to determine present ability to pay before enforcing incarceration

Key Cases Cited

Tirouda v. State, 919 So. 2d 211 (Miss. Ct. App.) (trial court’s Rule 60(b) discretion and fraud-on-the-court analysis)
Trim v. Trim, 33 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2010) (Rule 60(b)(6) reserved for exceptional misconduct)
Roberts v. Lopez, 148 So. 3d 393 (Miss. Ct. App.) (fraudulent misrepresentation underlying relief for fraud on the court)
Carpenter v. Berry, 58 So. 3d 1158 (Miss. 2011) (chancellor as ultimate guardian of wards)
In re Conservatorship of Mathews, 633 So. 2d 1038 (Miss. 1994) (equity protections for wards and court’s role)
Jones v. Hargrove, 516 So. 2d 1354 (Miss. 1987) (civil contempt: imprisonment only if contemnor can comply; inability to pay is a defense)
Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co. v. Bolles, 535 So. 2d 56 (Miss.) (abuse-of-discretion review of Rule 60 relief)
Jackson v. Jackson, 732 So. 2d 916 (Miss. 1999) (reaffirming chancellor’s role as guardian of wards)