Tommy L. Ewing, Jr. v. Lisa Younger Neese
199 So. 3d 681
| Miss. | 2016Background
- Tamarcus Ewing (minor) and his mother were injured/killed in a 2002 accident; Tommy Lee Ewing (father) was appointed guardian of Tamarcus’s person and estate and pursued a wrongful-death/personal-injury suit on the ward’s behalf.
- The Noxubee County Chancery Court approved and sealed the guardianship/settlement file in 2003; the guardianship file was later transferred to Lowndes County and ordered to remain sealed.
- Tommy, as guardian, signed settlement documents and had access to settlement and estate financial information while he served as guardian (2002–2009).
- Tommy was removed as guardian of the estate in 2010 for mismanagement of funds; coguardians were appointed.
- In 2014 Tommy sought unredacted copies of the sealed settlement documents from the Lowndes County clerk; the chancellor denied the request (ruling Tommy lacked standing), and Tommy appealed.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed: because Tommy participated in the settlement and previously had access to the documents as guardian, keeping the sealed documents from him did not serve any privacy interest and he must be given access (though documents remain sealed to the public).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ewing) | Defendant's Argument (Clerk/Chancellor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancery file was sealed | The original sealing did not cover the Lowndes County chancery file after transfer | The 2003 Noxubee chancery order sealed the estate file and transfer orders continued the seal | File was sealed; transfer orders kept it sealed |
| Whether Ewing is entitled to access sealed settlement documents | Ewing participated in and signed the settlement as guardian/Next Friend and therefore the sealing order should not bar his access | Ewing is not a party to the estate case after removal and thus lacks standing to obtain the documents | Ewing entitled to access: prior participation and access as guardian defeats any asserted privacy interest in withholding the documents from him |
| Proper procedure / standing and whether the clerk was a proper respondent | Ewing argued clerk refused requests and thus is liable for not providing documents | Chancellor dismissed clerk as improper party (clerk was following court order); held Ewing lacked standing | Court treated petition as motion for access; clerk dismissal was proper but standing/party labels irrelevant to the access issue; access must be granted |
| Whether failure to serve clerk under Tort Claims Act or appeal frivolous | Ewing argued clerk failed to respond; clerk argued service defects and asked for sanctions and fees | Court held the request was for documents (not a tort claim), and appeal was not frivolous given reversal | Clerk’s procedural defenses and sanctions denied on appeal; appeal not frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Cole v. Ferrell, 163 So.3d 921 (Miss. 2012) (sets out balancing test for sealing settlement agreements vs. public access)
- Williamson v. Edmonds, 880 So.2d 310 (Miss. 2004) (sealing orders/confidentiality prevent public dissemination but do not bar participants from obtaining information about cases in which they participated)
- Burgess v. City of Gulfport, 814 So.2d 149 (Miss. 2002) (standing requires a colorable interest in the subject matter or an adverse effect from defendant’s conduct)