Rita Faye Miley v. Dennis K. Daniel
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CA-00677-COA
RITA FAYE MILEY
APPELLANT
v.
DENNIS K. DANIEL, EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF WILLIAM M. MILEY, JR.,
DECEASED
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
02/21/2008
HON. KENNETH M. BURNS
OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
HAL H.H. MCCLANAHAN
RODNEY P. FAVER
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
FOUND THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO
PROVE THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO
SEPARATE MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS
AND ORDERED APPELLEE TO CONTINUE
PAYING THE APPELLANT TEMPORARY
SUPPORT PAYMENTS OF $2,400 PER
MONTH AND ORDERED THE APPELLEE
TO PAY APPELLANT $5,000 IN
ATTORNEY’S FEES
AFFIRMED - 10/06/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
ROBERTS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This appeal follows Rita Faye Miley’s unsuccessful complaint for separate
maintenance against William M. “Buzz” Miley, Jr. Rita does not appeal the chancellor’s
decision to forego awarding separate maintenance. Instead, Rita appeals the chancellor’s
decision to award only a portion of the attorney’s fees she requested. Finding no error, we
affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
The relationship between Rita and William was described as a “May-December
marriage.” 1 Rita and William were married in June 2001. In March 2007, Rita filed a
complaint for separate maintenance. William responded and denied the allegations in Rita’s
complaint.
In August 2007, the Oktibbeha County Chancery Court entered an order
awarding Rita temporary maintenance of $2,400 per month.
¶3.
The trial on Rita’s complaint for separate maintenance took place on January 10,
2008. The chancellor rendered a bench opinion at the end of the trial. The chancellor found
that Rita had failed to prove that she was entitled to separate maintenance. However, the
chancellor also found that Rita and William would never live together as husband and wife
and that it was equitable to order William to continue paying Rita temporary maintenance
payments of $2,400 per month. Rita has not appealed the chancellor’s decision that she was
not entitled to separate maintenance.
Interestingly, William did not cross-appeal the
chancellor’s order that William was to continue paying Rita monthly temporary support
payments. Accordingly, the chancellor’s decision in that regard is not at issue.
¶4.
Instead, this appeal focuses on Rita’s request for attorney’s fees. Rita presented
evidence that she owed her attorney, Hal H.H. McClanahan, more than $26,000 in attorney’s
fees. The chancellor found that Rita was unable to pay McClanahan. The chancellor also
1
The record indicates that William was thirty-six years older than Rita.
2
found that McClanahan presented a true statement of the time he put into the case and that
his time was valued as stated. However, the chancellor only ordered William to pay a
portion of the requested attorney’s fees. That is, the chancellor ordered William to pay Rita
$5,000 for attorney’s fees, instead of the $26,000 that was requested. The chancellor’s bench
opinion was memorialized in a judgment dated February 26, 2008. Aggrieved by the
chancellor’s decision to award only a portion of McClanahan’s requested attorney’s fees,
Rita appeals.2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
“The trial court is the appropriate entity to award attorney’s fees and costs.” Mabus
v. Mabus, 910 So. 2d 486, 488 (¶7) (Miss. 2005). “Unless the chancellor is manifestly
wrong, his decision regarding attorney[’s] fees will not be disturbed on appeal.” Id. “It is
well settled in this State that what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee rests within the
sound discretion of the trial court and any testimony by attorneys with respect to such fees
is purely advisory and not binding on the trial court.” Id. (citation omitted). The appellate
Court “will not reverse the trial court on the question of attorney’s fees unless there is a
manifest abuse of discretion in making the allowance.” Id. “The word ‘manifest,’ as defined
in this context, means unmistakable, clear, plain, or indisputable.” Id.
ANALYSIS
¶6.
Rita claims that the chancellor committed reversible error when he declined to award
the total amount of fees she had incurred. Rita notes that McClanahan presented an affidavit
2
On November 21, 2008, William died after Rita appealed. His estate has been
substituted as the appellee.
3
and itemization of his fees, and attorney Gary L. Geeslin swore by affidavit that
McClanahan’s fees were reasonable. Rita further notes that William did not claim that
McClanahan’s fees were unreasonable, and he did not object to the amount of time that
McClanahan spent on the case.
¶7.
Additionally, Rita claims the chancellor erred by not discussing the factors set forth
in McKee v. McKee, 418 So. 2d 764, 767 (Miss. 1982). Those factors are: (1) a party’s
financial inability to pay, (2) the skill and standing of the attorney, (3) the nature, novelty,
and difficulty of the case, and (4) usual and customary fees for similar cases. Id. However,
this Court has held that “failure to address the McKee factors is not necessarily a cause to
reverse [an] award.” Mitchell v. Mitchell, 823 So. 2d 568, 573 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)
(citing Wells v. Wells, 800 So. 2d 1239, 1246 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001)).
¶8.
Although the record affirmatively establishes that McClanahan spent considerable
time and resources on Rita’s case, we cannot find that the chancellor “manifestly” abused his
considerable discretion when he awarded only a portion of the attorney’s fees Rita requested.
Rita did not prevail with her separate maintenance claim. The chancellor only awarded a
portion of the requested fees because he was of the opinion that it was equitable to do so.
Under the precise circumstances of this case, we are not prepared to reverse a chancellor’s
decision to award a portion of attorney’s fees when the requesting party did not prevail with
the underlying claim. Accordingly, we find no merit to this issue.
¶9.
In her brief, Rita states that “the trial court erred in not awarding [her] sufficient
reasonable attorney[’s] fees to which she is entitled together with an award for attorney[’s]
fees for having to appear before [this Court] and appeal the lower court’s ruling.” We
4
interpret this portion of Rita’s brief as a request for attorney’s fees on appeal. Generally, this
Court has awarded attorney’s fees on appeal “in the amount of one-half of what was awarded
in the lower court.” Lauro v. Lauro, 924 So. 2d 584, 592 (¶33) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).
However, because Rita failed to sustain the burden of proof of her underlying claim at trial,
and she appeals solely on the basis that the chancellor erred when he did not award all of the
attorney’s fees that she requested, we decline to award additional attorney’s fees on appeal.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.