Skip to main content

Meritless is Good. Frivolous would have been Better.

This is a Chalgian and Tripp case just handed down from the Court of Appeals. Unpublished.  Click here to read In Re Conservatorship of Ueal E. Patrick.

Ueal is a prominent business man in Jackson. He was involved in litigation.  Ueal’s health was declining and the stress of the litigation was making it worse.  In the context of working with him on a separate trust matter, we suggested that it might be beneficial to have his child Mark act as his conservator so that he (Mark) could handle the litigation.  Mark was already deeply involved in the management of the business, and very sophisticated in business matters.  In addition, predating all this was a power of attorney created by Ueal, appointing Mark as his agent, and nominating Mark as conservator should that become necessary.

A hearing was held at which several attorneys were present. The opposing parties did not contest that the appointment of a conservator was appropriate.  They simply opposed the appointment of Mark.  They presented no evidence, called no witnesses, merely made legal arguments.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding Ueal to be a person in need of a conservator, even though they stipulated to it in their pleadings and in court. They argued that the trial court erred by not requiring an independent medical exam be conducted to determine the amount of weight that should be given to Ueal’s nomination of Mark.  And they argued that Mark should not have been appointed because he had a conflict of interest with respect to the other matters being separately litigated.

The COA goes through each of appellant’s arguments, systematically pointing out the deficits in their reasoning. At various points the COA labels their arguments “abandoned,” “without merit,” and “meritless.” I beat up on our COA enough in this forum.  They got this one right.  I appreciate it.

Thanks to our John Mabley for doing an excellent job briefing the case and helping the COA clearly see the deficiencies in appellant’s positions.