The Better Chancery Practice Blog

Louis Pannagl had made a will in 2001. In April, 2011, he contacted Kellems, a lawyer, about changes he wanted to be made in his will. He sent Kellems handwritten notes with the changes, including a document that included the language, “The Will of April 23rd 2011 … has been destroyed and March 23, 1993 [sic].” It is undisputed that the notes were in Louis’s handwriting.

Louis died on June 8, 2011, and Louis’s widow, Donis, contacted one of Louis’s lawyers, who sent her the notes described above. Donis gave the notes to her son, David Lambert, Louis’s step-son, who read them and passed them on to Holmes, an attorney he had hired to open Louis’s estate. On August 19, 2011, a sworn petition was filed, with Louis’s will attached, alleging that the original had been lost and that the will had not been destroyed by Louis with intent to revoke it. The handwritten notes were not attached to the petition.

Both of Louis’s biological son, Curt, and daughter, Sammi, filed contests to probate of the will. It was not until around a year after the petition had been filed that they found out, in the course of discovery, about the handwritten notes revoking the prior will(s). Sammi filed for summary judgment and sanctions under MRCP 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act. The chancellor granted summary judgment, but declined to impose sanctions.

Sammi and Curt appealed the denial of sanctions.

In the case of Estate of Pannagl: Pannagl and Spence v. Lambert and Holmes, the COA on November 4, 2014, reversed. Since this case makes some important points about sanctionable behavior and the applicable law, I am quoting at length:

¶7. In this appeal, Curt contends that Lambert’s failure to include the document in this petition constituted fraud; thus, the chancellor erred in failing to award sanctions. Curt argues that Lambert, having read the handwritten document prior to filing his petition, knew the will had been destroyed with an intent to revoke it and, therefore, had no hope of success. According to Curt, the action was frivolous and constituted a fraud on the court because Lambert withheld the document and filed a sworn petition alleging that the original will was lost and not destroyed by Louis with the intent to revoke it.

¶8. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) states, in pertinent part:

If any party files a motion or pleading which, in the opinion of the court, is frivolous or is filed for the purpose of harassment or delay, the court may order such a party, or his attorney, or both, to pay to the opposing party or parties the reasonable expenses incurred by such other parties and by their attorneys, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

M.R.C.P. 11(b). The Litigation Accountability Act states, in pertinent part:

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 . . . .

Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-5(1) (Rev. 2012). The phrase “without substantial justification” is defined by the Act as a filing that is “frivolous, groundless in fact or in law, or vexatious, as determined by the court.” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-3(a) (Rev. 2012). “The term ‘frivolous’ as used in this section takes the same definition as it does under Rule 11: a claim or defense made ‘without hope of success.’” In re Spencer, 985 So. 2d at 338 (¶26) (quotations omitted). “A plaintiff’s belief alone will not garner a ‘hope of success’ where a claim has no basis in fact.” Foster v. Ross, 804 So. 2d 1018, 1024 (¶21) (Miss. 2002) (quotations omitted). Whether a party has any “hope of success” is an objective standard to be analyzed from the vantage point of a reasonable plaintiff at the time the complaint was filed. Tricon Metals & Servs. Inc. v. Topp, 537 So. 2d 1331, 1335 (Miss. 1989).

¶9. The chancellor found the following: (1) it was unclear whether the will had been revoked or if Louis merely contemplated doing so; (2) more information was required to determine Louis’s intent; (3) the handwritten document was insufficient to put a proponent of a will having minor children as beneficiaries on notice that it had been revoked; (4) the handwritten document was not subscribed, but merely signed at the top, and the various copies of the document contained different-color ink; and (5) tendering a copy of Louis’s will was not so egregious as to warrant the imposition of sanctions against Lambert and Holmes.

¶10. The Mississippi Supreme Court has found that a misrepresentation of pertinent facts to a chancellor, who entered an order based on the misrepresentations, was a violation of the Litigation Accountability Act and Rule 11 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and warranted sanctions. In re Estate of Ladner, 909 So. 2d 1051, 1056 (¶17) (Miss. 2004). In that case, an executor and his attorney failed to inform the court of the testator’s brother’s claim to ownership of cattle located on the brother’s land prior to obtaining a court order to seize the cattle. Id. at 1055-56 (¶¶15-16). In addition, this Court has found that a verified creditor’s notice of claim, filed by the counsel of a creditor of potential heirs of a decedent’s estate and containing a misrepresentation of pertinent facts, was frivolous. In re Necaise, 126 So. 3d 49, 57 (¶30) (Miss. App. Ct. 2013). This Court found that the misrepresentation caused the estate to incur unnecessary attorney’s fees in having to respond to those filings and thus warranted sanctions under Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act. Id.

¶11. In this case, Lambert failed to disclose the existence of the handwritten document when he filed his petition. A reasonable person in Lambert’s position, with Lambert’s knowledge, would have no hope of success in rebutting the presumption that Louis’s will had been lost and not destroyed. Lambert admitted that, when he filed his petition, he had received and read the documents attached to Carrigee’s letter, which included the handwritten document. This letter, with attachments, was later given to Holmes prior to filing this action. In that document, Louis listed a myriad of changes he wanted to make to his will. At the bottom of the first column of the two-column document, he wrote: “The will of April 23rd 2001 Brookhaven/Brady Kellems has been destroyed.” The words “and March 23, 1993,” were written in a different-color ink on Kellems’s copy. The document was signed by Louis, and Donis testified that the document was in his handwriting. Lambert searched for a will, but could not find one. The file folder in Louis’s office entitled “will” was empty.

¶12. From this document, it is clear that Louis wanted to make changes to his will and that he intended to revoke all prior wills. Even though Louis signed this document at the top of the page, Donis testified that it was his handwriting. When taken in context, the statement that: “The will of April 23rd 2001 Brookhaven/Brady Kellems has been destroyed,” effectively put Lambert and his attorney on notice that Louis destroyed his will with the intent to revoke it. This is evidenced by Lambert’s attempt to convert the proceedings to that of intestate succession. On the same day that the court ruled on a motion to compel Kellems to give his deposition, and prior to any other depositions being taken, Lambert filed a motion to amend his petition. He sought a declaration that Louis had died intestate and asked the court to appoint Donis the administrator. The handwritten document had not yet come to light, and judging from the timing of the motion’s filing, Holmes knew that once it did, there would be no hope of success in overcoming the presumption. In the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Holmes admitted that he filed that motion because he did not think he could overcome the presumption that Louis’s will had been lost and not destroyed.

¶13. The chancellor did not consider the fact of nondisclosure to be important when making her decision about whether to award sanctions. But the fact remains that the nondisclosure was a misrepresentation, making the petition to probate the will frivolous in light of the evidence. The chancellor abused her discretion in not considering Lambert’s nondisclosure in determining the frivolity of the action. Curt incurred unnecessary expense in contesting the probate of this will, only to uncover a document that Lambert withheld for almost a year and a half and that would later serve as the basis for summary judgment.

¶14. Finding that the chancellor abused her discretion in deciding not to award sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 and the Litigation Accountability Act, we reverse and remand for a determination of attorney’s fees and costs.

So the shortcoming here was the failure to disclose the handwritten notes. Hindsight, which is always high-def, tells us that the better practice would have been to disclose the notes and leave it up to the chancellor, as finder of fact, to interpret them. By not disclosing the notes, Lambert and counsel gave the reasonable impression that they were trying to hide something to change a possible adverse outcome. That’s always a recipe for sanctions and even discipline.