IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2018-CA-00893-COA
DANA WILSON AND KEVIN WILSON APPELLANTS
v.
BECKY WILSON APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/21/2018
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. E. VINCENT DAVIS
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: ADAMS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: JOSEPH BILBO MOFFETT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: WALTER BROWN JR.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 03/12/2019
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND LAWRENCE, JJ.
BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. After a nineteen-year marriage, Kevin Wilson left his wife, Becky, and the couple
divorced on December 28, 2015. Kevin bought a house on Main Street in Natchez,
Mississippi in February 2016, and his girlfriend, Dana, moved in with him. Because of
complex property-settlement issues in early 2016, Becky had strained communications with
Kevin during that time, some of which resulted in “occasional outbursts” by Becky that she
later acknowledged were “distasteful and unnecessary.” There was also animosity between
Becky and Dana, with Becky accusing Dana of breaking up her marriage. Kevin and Dana
(The Wilsons) married on November 19, 2016.
¶2. On June 21, 2017, the Wilsons filed a complaint with the Adams County Chancery
Court for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction
against Becky and her sister, Martha Saulters. The complaint alleged:
That over the past several months Defendants, or one of them, have engaged
in a series of events, from social media, to parking in front of and/or driving
a vehicle around Plaintiffs’ home, to coming onto Plaintiffs’ premises and
causing a commotion, disturbance and/or physically attacking and assaulting
Plaintiffs, which have caused Plaintiffs emotional distress, worry, fear,
concern for their personal safety and physical injury.
The complaint resulted from a May 9, 2017 altercation between the parties. Becky was
parked in a public “turnaround” on Main Street, approximately 500 feet from the Wilsons’
home. Dana was driving down the street, and she angrily confronted Becky. Dana
eventually drove away, and Becky, upset by the confrontation, called her sister, Martha, and
law enforcement. Later that afternoon, Martha went to the Wilsons’ business to talk to
Kevin, and she got into a physical altercation with Dana. Becky was not present. Martha
was charged with simple assault, and a “No Contact Conditions” order was entered by the
Natchez Municipal Court.
¶3. Becky filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 6, asserting that the Wilsons
failed to state with any specificity the acts alleged or their dates, and she requested a more
definite statement.1 A preliminary motions hearing was held on July 20, 2017. The
chancellor held:
[I]t seems like between now and the time we get back into court at least, that
everybody can just agree that they will not have any contact -- any intentional
1
Martha filed an answer, motion to dismiss, and counter-claim requesting a
temporary restraining order against the Wilsons. On January 4, 2018, the Wilsons
subsequently entered into an agreed order of dismissal with regard to any claims against
Martha.
2
contact with anyone on the other side of this case. . . . And if they violate that
between now and the time they come back to court, that would not necessarily
be a good thing. I’m sure the lawyers will advise their clients to not have any
contact because that would certainly not look good at the next hearing.
The parties mutually agreed to no contact. On August 16, 2017, the Wilsons filed a notice
of service styled “Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for More Definite Statement filed herein
by Defendant, Becky Wilson.” Attached were copies of various texts and Facebook posts
from Becky to Kevin and to Dana’s daughter-in-law dated early 2016. The content of those
messages indicated that Becky was angry and upset about Kevin’s leaving her, and she
blamed Dana for ruining her marriage.
¶4. On January 12, 2018, Becky filed a motion for summary judgment. In an attached
affidavit, Becky stated that, on May 9, she had received the approved petition for a name
change; so she left her home and was headed to Atmos Energy to change her account to her
maiden name. Becky attested that she was stopped in the public turnaround on Main Street
near the Wilsons’ home because she was trying to search for the gas company’s phone
number because she could not find their office, which she thought was nearby on Franklin
Street. While she admitted in the affidavit that she had been “under the care of a health care
professional to assist [her] emotionally in [her] re-adjustment and new life,” Becky averred
that “there was at no time any act on my part towards Kevin or Dana that could be
characterized in any way as supportive of the allegations made in the complaint.”
¶5. The Wilsons denied the allegations in Becky’s motion and filed a motion for a mental
examination based on Becky’s comment in her affidavit that she had sought help from a
health professional. The motion alleged a discrepancy in Becky’s affidavit, noting the
3
court’s order granting the name change was filed and signed on May 10, not May 9. The
Wilsons also testified in an affidavit regarding specific instances of Becky’s conduct (mainly
aforementioned texts and Facebook posts) from January 2016 to May 2017, and claiming
Becky “ha[d] continuously driven by and/or stopped at our home until May 9, 2017.”2 They
also claimed that Becky left a note on their door in February 2017, which stated that she had
been interested in buying the house before Kevin bought it.
¶6. A motions hearing was held on January 30. Becky’s counsel argued:
[T]here is no event or incident that has occurred in the last year and a half, in
the six – or more than the last year and a half no incident has occurred. So
there is no immediate or irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. . . . [T]he injunction
request should be dismissed with a motion of summary judgment entered on
behalf of Becky Wilson.
Becky testified that she had been looking for Atmos Energy’s office when Dana drove up to
her car, “slamm[ing] on brakes” and yelled at her, asking why she was there. Dana then
turned around and blocked Becky from moving. Frightened, she called a friend who
suggested she contact the police. Kevin happened to drive by at that time, and Dana left.
Upset, Becky called her sister and the police, but she decided to let the incident go and went
home. The Wilsons did not attend the hearing, but their attorney examined Becky, pointing
out inconsistencies in her affidavit regarding the events of May 9. Regarding the prior events
alleged by the Wilsons, Becky admitted that she had left a note on the door of the Wilsons’
home, but not in 2017 as alleged, but in February 2016, right after Kevin bought the house.
2
Becky filed an amended affidavit on January 29 that contained minor revisions in
response to the Wilsons’ issue regarding discrepancies in her affidavit. However, since she
testified at the motions hearing, counsel subsequently withdrew the amended affidavit as
moot.
4
She acknowledged the previous texts from early 2016, and apologized, explaining she was
heartbroken by the dissolution of her marriage. When asked about treatment for mental
health, Becky stated that she had contacted and met with a friend who was a counselor to
help her with the emotional trauma she suffered because of the divorce.
¶7. On February 21, 2018, the chancery court granted Becky’s motion for summary
judgment. The court determined that the events from early 2016 were “too remote in time”
to the June 2017 complaint for an injunction. The court further held that there was no dispute
that Becky was in the public turnaround and, because it was a public street, Becky did not
need special permission to be there. Lastly, the chancery court concluded that the events that
occurred at the Wilsons’ place of business on May 9 were “not proximately caused by
Becky.”
¶8. Becky filed an application for attorney’s fees, and a final judgment of dismissal was
entered on May 21, incorporating the court’s earlier opinion granting summary judgment and
awarding, in part, Becky’s application for attorney’s fees. The Wilsons appeal. Finding no
error, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
I. Whether the chancery court erred in granting summary judgment.
¶9. In order for a permanent injunction to be granted, the Wilsons were required to “show
an imminent threat of irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.” A-1
Pallet Co. v. City of Jackson, 40 So. 3d 563, 569 (¶20) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Ruff v. Estate
of Ruff, 989 So. 2d 366, 369-70 (¶13) (Miss. 2008)). “A mandatory injunction is a harsh
5
remedy that is not favored by courts, and should be used only in cases of great necessity.”
Ruff, 989 So. 2d at 370 (¶13). Finding “the record reveal[ed] that Becky had not acted
improperly toward the Wilsons for more than a year leading up the filing of the complaint
on June 21, 2017,” the chancery court granted her motion for summary judgment. We
conduct a de novo review of an appeal from summary judgment. Alamac LLC v. Travelers
Bank & Tr. FSB, 941 So. 2d 219, 220 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Pursuant to Rule 56(c)
of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate when ‘the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.’” Id. (quoting
M.R.C.P. 56(c)). Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Id.
¶10. The Wilsons argue that the summary-judgment hearing was a “mini-trial,” with the
chancery court addressing contested issues of fact; therefore, summary judgment was not
appropriate. They contend that the court improperly made findings of contested fact,
particularly the chancery court’s determination that Becky’s testimony as to why she was
driving down Main Street was “more plausible” that the Wilsons’ “attack on her as to why
she was passing by [their] home[.]” Their main complaint concerns the inconsistencies
between Becky’s affidavit and her testimony at the hearing; specifically, that her affidavit
said the petition was approved and she left her home to go the Atmos Energy, but her
testimony at the hearing was that she left the attorney’s office with the copy of the petition
that had yet to be approved by court. The Wilsons also take issue with Becky’s explanation
that she was driving down Main Street to find Atmos Energy, contending that she should
6
have known that it had moved locations, and they claim that the court ignored their allegation
that “Becky ha[d] continuously driven by and/or stopped at [their] home until May 9, 2017.”
¶11. We agree with the chancery court that any inconsistencies were not material and
created no genuine issue warranting the denial of summary judgment. The petition to change
Becky’s name was dated and signed by Becky on May 9; it just was not filed and signed by
the court until the following day. Moreover, the Wilsons admitted in their pleadings that
Becky told Dana she was looking for Atmos Energy when she was confronted. Evidence was
presented at the hearing that Atmos Energy’s address was still listed on Franklin Street in a
recent phone book, corroborating Becky’s version of the events that she thought the office
was on Franklin Street. Regarding whether Becky had “continuously” driven past their
home, Becky said at the hearing that she drove down Main Street often because it was the
main thoroughfare in town. The chancery court concluded:
Becky notes and the [c]ourt takes judicial notice that this is Main Street in the
City of Natchez and that given Becky’s testimony as to where her residence is
and how to normally go to downtown Natchez she customarily uses Main
Street, a gateway to the City of Natchez, at least ten times a week, which
would be over 500 times a year. Plaintiffs’ counsel offered no evidence,
probative or otherwise, in contradiction of this testimony. The [c]ourt finds
that passing by the Plaintiffs’ house at 1210 Main Street is not a genuine issue
of material fact that would preclude the granting of [s]ummary [j]udgment.
Thus, the opinion clearly indicated that the chancery court considered the Wilsons’ claim in
this regard and found it without any basis in the evidence. The Mississippi Supreme Court
has held:
It is precisely because oral testimony, with the attendant opportunity for cross-
examination, is the mode of presentation that is thought most appropriate for
use at trial that it also is the most trustworthy form of proof available for a
7
Rule 56 hearing. Accordingly, oral testimony should be used when there is
reason to believe that it will be of significant assistance to the court and is
reasonably circumscribed in scope.
Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Guidant Mut. Ins. Co., 99 So. 3d 142, 154 (¶34) (Miss. 2012)
(quoting Crain v. Cleveland Lodge 1532; Order of Moose Inc., 560 So. 2d 142, 144 (Miss.
1990)). Counsel for the Wilsons was permitted to cross-examine Becky, and the chancery
court properly considered Becky’s testimony and explanation of the events and considered
this against the allegations in the Wilsons’ complaint and affidavit. The Wilsons offered no
evidence to contradict Becky’s testimony in order to create a genuine issue of material fact
that Becky’s actions were of a different nature.
¶12. Furthermore, even if we wholly disregard Becky’s testimony at the hearing, we still
find no evidence to substantiate the Wilsons’ claim that they would suffer “irreparable and
immediate harm.” The Wilsons’ original complaint failed to allege any specific events or
instances of behavior. The only time frame alleged was “over the past several months.” The
requested supplementation provided by the Wilsons showed no recent issues, except for a
note allegedly left on their door in February 2017 and the incident on May 9. Regarding the
note left on the door, we agree with the chancery court’s finding that the note was “relatively
harmless” and did not create a genuine issue of material fact. The note simply told Kevin
Becky had wanted to buy the house and complimented him on his “good taste.”
¶13. Therefore, we cannot find error in the chancellor’s grant of summary judgment in
Becky’s favor.
II. Whether the court erred in granting attorney’s fees, costs and
expenses.
8
¶14. Becky filed an application for attorney’s fees under Rule 11 and Rule 54(d) of the
Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether to award monetary sanctions under the
Litigation Accountability Act is left to the trial court’s discretion. In re Spencer, 985 So. 2d
330, 336-37 (¶19) (Miss. 2008) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-7) (Rev. 2002)). This is
also true for sanctions awarded under Rule 11. Id. at 337 (¶19) (citing M.R.C.P. 11(b)). In
addressing whether to award monetary sanctions, the chancery court examined each of the
following factors:
(a) The extent to which any effort was made to determine the validity of
any action, claim or defense before it was asserted, and the time
remaining within which the claim or defense could be filed;
(b) The extent of any effort made after the commencement of an action to
reduce the number of claims being asserted or to dismiss claims that
have been found not to be valid;
(c) The availability of facts to assist in determining the validity of an
action, claim or defense;
(d) Whether or not the action was prosecuted or defended, in whole or in
part, in bad faith or for improper purpose;
(e) Whether or not issues of fact, determinative of the validity of a party’s
claim or defense, were reasonably in conflict;
(f) The extent to which the party prevailed with respect to the amount of
and number of claims or defenses in controversy;
(g) The extent to which any action, claim or defense was asserted by an
attorney or party in a good faith attempt to establish a new theory of
law in the state, which purpose was made known to the court at the time
of filing;
(h) The amount or conditions of any offer of judgment or settlement in
relation to the amount or conditions of the ultimate relief granted by the
court;
(i) The extent to which a reasonable effort was made to determine prior to
the time of filing of an action or claim that all parties sued or joined
were proper parties owing a legally defined duty to any party or parties
asserting the claim or action;
(j) The extent of any effort made after the commencement of an action to
reduce the number of parties in the action; and
(k) The period of time available to the attorney for the party asserting any
9
defense before such defense was interposed.
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-55-7. The chancery court addressed every relevant factor set forth in
section 11-55-7 and found: (1) the Wilsons failed to investigate the validity of their claims;
(2) the Wilsons failed to make an effort to reduce the number of claims against Becky; (3)
all facts were “readily available to the Wilsons”; (4) “the Wilsons prosecuted the actions for
an improper purpose”; (5) there were no issues of fact reasonably in conflict; (6) the Wilsons
did not prevail with respect to any claim, and they were not granted any relief or offer any
settlement; (7) Becky did not owe a duty to the Wilsons to explain why she was on a public
street; and (8) although the Wilsons dismissed Martha from the case, they did not make an
effort to dismiss Becky.3 Therefore, finding that Becky had incurred expenses of $715.50
and attorney’s fees of $8,287.50 since January 4, 2018, the Wilsons were ordered to pay
Becky $9,003, plus interest.
¶15. The Wilsons argue that the court’s award of expenses and attorney’s fees was not
proper as it was apparent their complaint not only had hope of success, but was actually
successful because they were awarded temporary relief. They also assert that none of the
factors justifying the award were present.
(a) The extent to which any effort was made to determine the
validity of any action, claim or defense before it was asserted,
and the time remaining within which the claim or defense could
be filed.
¶16. The chancery court noted that the “impetus for the filing of this action” was the May
3
The court found that factors (g) and (k) were not applicable. The Wilsons do not
dispute this finding on appeal.
10
9 event. Because Becky was on a public street, and the Wilsons could have easily verified
Becky’s explanation that she was looking for Atmos Energy’s office, the court found the
Wilsons “made little or no effort to determine the validity of their claims against Becky.”
On appeal, the Wilsons simply reiterate their argument from the first issue concerning the
inconsistencies in Becky’s testimony, and their contention that the court erred in awarding
summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact. We find no abuse of
discretion in the court’s finding.
(b) The extent of any effort made after the commencement of an
action to reduce the number of claims being asserted or to
dismiss claims that have been found not to be valid.
¶17. The chancery court found that the Wilsons “did not file any pleading stating what
Becky allegedly did that would justify an injunction against Becky.” Additionally, the court
noted that the Wilsons did not provide any evidence to substantiate their allegations. The
Wilsons only assert that such evidence was unnecessary and “simply not proper at a hearing
on a [m]otion for [s]ummary [j]udgment.” We find no abuse of the discretion in the court’s
finding that the Wilsons made no effort to reduce or dismiss the claims against Becky.
(c) The availability of facts to assist in determining the validity of
an action, claim or defense.
¶18. The chancery court found that it was undisputed that Becky was parked on a public
street, and the Wilsons could have easily verified that Atmos Energy still had a listed
Franklin Street address and confirmed Becky’s explanation of her presence. We find no error
in the court’s determination. Although the Wilsons claim there were disputed facts about the
events that day, they do not contest that Becky was indeed on a public street and that the facts
11
regarding why she was there were easily determined.
(d) Whether or not the action was prosecuted or defended, in whole
or in part, in bad faith or for improper purpose.
¶19. Becky alleged that the action was instituted to harass her, and the chancery court
agreed, finding no “substantial justification” for the prosecution of the action. The Wilsons
cite to their response to the motion for summary judgment, which alleged several acts they
claim supported their original complaint. They also contend that because their request for
temporary relief was granted, their prosecution of the matter was proper. As noted, the
majority of the acts alleged were found to be too remote in time. Additionally, the chancery
court’s reasoning for the granting of temporary relief was because all parties mutually agreed
to no contact; not because the chancellor made any findings concerning the substance of the
allegations in the complaint. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination.
(e) Whether or not issues of fact, determinative of the validity of a
party’s claim or defense, were reasonably in conflict.
¶20. The Wilsons reiterate their argument from factor (a), which we have already found
to be without merit.
(f) The extent to which the party prevailed with respect to the
amount of and number of claims or defenses in controversy.
¶21. As in factor (d), the Wilsons assert that because their request for temporary relief was
granted, the court’s finding was contradicted by the record. Again, we note that the chancery
court granted the temporary relief based upon the parties’ agreement to no contact, and we
can find no abuse of discretion in the court’s findings on this factor.
(h) The amount or conditions of any offer of judgment or settlement
12
in relation to the amount or conditions of the ultimate relief
granted by the court.
¶22. The chancery court found that the Wilsons were not granted any relief and, although
there were discussions of a possible settlement, the Wilsons provided no proof “regarding
the amount or conditions of any offer of judgment or settlement.” The Wilsons note there
was no hearing or opportunity to present any proof and refer to a motion to negotiate a
settlement. However, the motion only discusses the settlement between the Wilsons and
Martha. We find that the record supports the chancery court’s determination.
(i) The extent to which a reasonable effort was made to determine
prior to the time of filing of an action or claim that all parties
sued or joined were proper parties owing a legally defined duty
to any party or parties asserting the claim or action.
¶23. The chancery court concluded that Becky owed no duty to the Wilsons to explain why
she was on a public road, and the other actions alleged were “too remote in time to warrant
a complaint for injunctive relief.” As the Wilsons reiterate their argument from factor (a),
we find no abuse of discretion for the reasons already discussed.
(j) The extent of any effort made after the commencement of an
action to reduce the number of parties in the action.
¶24. The chancellor found: “Because of the physical altercation between Martha Salters
and Dana, the Wilsons arguably had a legitimate reason to assert a claim against her. Yet,
they voluntarily dismissed her from the case. They did not dismiss Becky.” The Wilsons
assert that the chancellor’s finding that they had a legitimate claim against Martha shows they
also had a claim against Becky, because if it were not for the May 9 incident between Becky
and Dana, Martha would not have come to their business. However, there was no evidence
13
Becky provoked the altercation between Martha and Dana or that she was even aware Martha
was going to see Kevin and Dana at their business.
¶25. The Wilsons further argue that Becky was not dismissed from the suit because she did
not accept or reject their proposed settlement. An email to both Becky’s attorney and
Martha’s attorney does indicates that some type of settlement was offered to both defendants.
But as we have already determined in the first issue, the Wilsons’ complaint failed to allege
a claim against Becky that would warrant the permanent injunction. Thus, we find no abuse
of discretion in the chancery court’s determination that the Wilsons’ failure to dismiss Becky
from the suit, after they had already dismissed Martha, against whom they had a “legitimate
claim,” warrants a finding that the factor favored an award of sanctions. Accordingly, we
find the chancery court’s grant of attorney’s fees and expenses was not an abuse of
discretion, and we affirm the judgment.
¶26. The Wilsons have also asserted a claim for attorney’s fees because Becky’s summary-
judgment motion was “without reasonable cause.” Since we have found no error in the
granting of summary judgment, this claim is without merit.
¶27. AFFIRMED.
J. WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, TINDELL, LAWRENCE,
McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. CARLTON, P.J., CONCURS IN
RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. McDONALD, J.,
NOT PARTICIPATING.
14