SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2013-CP-018S2 FILED AUG 2 2 2014 \ DAVID H. VINCENT Vs. JOAN HANKINS RICKMAN APPELLANT APPELLEE ANSWER TO RESPONSE BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE David Vincent, Pro Se 5422 Peach Trail Dr. Southaven, MS 38671 Phone: 901-849-3333 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2013-CP-018S2 DAVID H. VINCENT APPELLANT Vs. JOAN HANKINS RICKMAN APPELLEE CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal: 1. David H. Vincent. Appellant; 2. Joan Rickman, Appellee; 3. Rusty Harlow, Attorney for Appellee; 4. Honorable Percy L. Lynchard, Jr., Chancery Court Judge, Trial Judge; 1 David H. Vincent Pro Se
TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ANSWER TO RESPONSE 6 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ANSWER TO RESPONSE 7 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ANSWER TO RESPONSE 9 ARGUMENT ANSWER TO RESPONSE 12 CONCLUSION ANSWER TO RESPONSE 14 ORAL ARGUMENTS REQUESTED 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 16 2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Chapman v. Ward, 3 So. 3d 790, 799 (1129) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) Lane v. Lane, 850 So. 2d 122, 126 (1111) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) McKee v. McKee, 418 So. 2d 764, 767 (Miss. 1982) Lenoir v. Lenoir, 611 So.2d 200, 202 (Miss. 1992) 3
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES On September 25 th, 2013, an Order entered in this cause by Desoto County Chancellor Percy Lynchard, denying the request of Movant David Vincent to be heard on the merits was in error, in that: I. The Chancellor erred when he dismissed David Vincent's assertion of Unclean Hands in his "ANSWER TO MOTION OF CONTEMPT" heard on 08/29/2012. (R. Page 01) David Vincent asserted that Joan Rickman was in violation of the previous order of the court by not supplying the appellant with the needed health insurance cards within the allotted 30 day period as ordered by the court and therefore came into the court with Unclean Hands. The Chancellor ruled against David Vincent, finding him in Contempt for a late medical bill payment without taking into account David Vincent's financial hardships and awarded Joan Rickman attorney fees in the amount of $1999.50. II. The Chancellor erred when he found David Vincent in Contempt on 06/26/13 and ordered additional excessive attorney fees in the amount of $3178.25. (R. Page 12) The Chancellor ruled that David Vincent paid a late child support payment nine months prior back in October 2012. The late child support payment in question had already previously been covered by a previous agreement and order and David Vincent had already previously been found in contempt and was assessed $1500 in attorney fees for this very same matter on 11/14/2012. (R. Page 10) This error resulted in double contempt findings and double attorney fees for the same issue that was covered in the 11/14/2012 order. 4
III. The Chancellor erred by placing David Vincent, a local pastor and director of an area ministry for the homeless under arrest on 06/26/13 for brand new attorney fees awarded that day without taking into account David Vincent's financial burdens or giving him anytime at all to pay the new attorney fees or an opportunity for a reasonable payment plan. {R. Page 12} IV. The Chancellor erred by dismissing both of David Vincent's "MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION" {R. Page 14} that were finally heard on 09/25/2013 at the very end of the case and by awarding Joan Rickman and her attorney an additional $1000 for attorney fees. {R. Page 21} V. The Chancellor erred by awarding excessive attorney fees to Joan Rickman in the amount of $1999.50 on 09/04/12 {R. Page 001}, $3125.78 on 06/17/13 {R. Page 12} and $1000 on 09/20/13 {R. Page 21} for routine legal work. 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ANSWER TO RESPONSE The parties did agree to an additional attorney fees payment of $1500 for the necessity of filing the new petition for contempt. However, Appellee's attorney would not completely drop the case because he was stating in error that Appellant was still behind on child support. Appellee's Statement of Case even highlights the fact that "THE CASE WAS CONTINUED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT TO BRING HIS PAYMENTS CURRENT". The case was then set for trial on June 1ih, 2013 because Appellee continued to state in error to Appellants attorney that Appellant was behind in child support. At the trial the Appellee's assertion was proven wrong and the Chancellor agreed that the Appellant was not in fact behind on child support. The Chancellor ruled that the Appellant was in fact up to date on his child support at that time. (R. Page 76 Line 28) Also at the hearing date, the balance of attorney fees that had been previously assessed was not past due. The Appellant had a payment of $333.25 per month. The Chancellor allowed for that payment plan to stand and did not find that the Appellant was in contempt for late attorney fees. (R. Page 76 Line 16) The Chancellor found that the Appellant was in Contempt for a late child support payment back in September, 2012. This contempt was already covered in the previous agreement and the Appellant agreed to pay $1500 in attorney fees for this reason on November 14 th, 2012. The Chancellor erred by awarding an additional contempt finding and awarding $3,125.78 in additional attorney fees and ordering the Appellant be incarcerated until he pay all of the new attorney fees that day. 6
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ANSWER TO RESPONSE Appellant does not work at Warriors Center located at 5422 Peach Trail in Southaven, Mississippi. Appellant works at Warriors Center, a Tennessee Non Profit Corporation & Charity for the Homeless located at 642 Semmes in Memphis, Tennessee. Appellant did still owe $671.25 in attorney's fees in June 2013, however they were not past due. The Chancellor did not find that Appellant was past due on attorney fees at that time. (R. Page 76 Line 17) The Chancellor did not find the Appellant in contempt for this reason. The Chancellor even allowed the Appellant to continue paying the previous attorney fees at $333.25 per month after the trial. Appellant did not pay for expensive trips while being late on child support. Appellant testified that his wife's family paid for a Disney World trip for a large family group. Appellant testified that he did not pay for a German Shepherd puppy at any time when he was late on child support. The dog had been purchased in March 2013 and there were no late payments of child support or attorney fees at any time near this event. (R. Page 46) Appellant testified that he was late on the September 2013 Child Support payment because he had some extra medical bills, he had received his Ministry Payroll Check a few weeks late and he was paying the children's partial colleges expenses, college apartment, and private school tuition. 7
The Appellee's attorney made tremendous errors on the Orders that he has filed and the Chancellor has allowed this even when they were in error. The accounting got so bad even the Appellee's attorney has a hard time being able to tell what was going on and whether the Appellant was caught up on child support or not. In the Appellee's Statement of The Facts, they actually make the statement on page 5 - "He got credit for the $1000 paid in November whether it was applied to attorney fees or child support." No wonder the Attorney for Appellee continued to assert that Appellant was behind on child support when he was not. They did not know what was going on and their accounting system was completely off. Appellee was proven to be in error at the June 2013 trial; however Attorney Rusty Harlow was able to use his influence with the Chancellor to get an additional award of attorney fees and incarceration for the Appellant. Appellant stated a falsehood by stating on Page 6 that "He was not current until the morning of the hearing." R. at p. 63. This is completely false and is proven wrong by the receipts that was produced by the Appellant at the trial. The Appellee was shown all the child support payment receipts on the stand and all were entered into evidence. (R. Pages 67-69) Even the Chancellor accepted the Child Support Receipts and found the Appellant to not be behind on child support. (R. Page 76) The Appellee attempted to testify that Appellant was behind on child support but this assertion was proven to be an error. Appellee made the assertion that she had not received any child support payments until the morning of the trial. This assertion was proven to be wrong by the May and June Child Support receipts that were entered into court record. (R. Pages 67-69) The Chancellor disagreed with the Appellee and found the Appellant was up to date on his child support. (R. Page 76) 8
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ANSWER TO RESPONSE 1. The Chancellor did err in dismissing the Appellants defense of unclean hands. The Chancellor did not properly consider the Appellants financial hardship and made an error by asserting from the bench that there was nothing in the order that stated the Appellee was ordered to produce an insurance card. 2. The Chancellor did err when he found Appellant in Contempt on June 26 th, 2013. The whole reason for the trial that day was because the Appellee was falsely asserting that Appellant was still behind on Child Support. That assertion was proven false. However the Chancellor still granted an additional $3178.25 in more attorney fees and gave the Appellant no time to pay. The Chancellor erred when ordering excessive attorney fees. When taking into account the first $1500 agreed on November 14, 2012 that brings the total to $4678.25 for one late child support payment. In addition, it is amazing how the attorney for the Appellee can drag the Appellant to trial falsely asserting that he is late on child support. Then when he was proved wrong, he can still get an additional award of $3178.25 and also use his influence to get the Appellant arrested with no time to pay the new attorney fees. In addition the Chancellor stated from the bench that the Appellant was not late on child support at the time of trial as was being asserted (R. Page 76) or that the Appellant was not late on attorney fees as asserted (R. Page 76). 9
3. The Chancellor erred by placing David Vincent, a local church pastor and director of a homeless charity under arrest on 06/26/13 for brand new attorney fees awarded without giving him anytime to payor an opportunity for a payment plan. The Chancellor's ruling was prejudicial and showed the negative influence of Attorney Rusty Harlow on the court. The Chancellor did not take into account the financial hardship the Appellant was under. (R. Pages 49-51) The Chancellor did not take into account the financial hardship that incarceration of the Appellant, until he paid the new attorney award of $3178.25 would cause. The Chancellor didn't consider the fact that the Appellant was already paying $333.25 per month and was up to date on those attorney fee payments. The Chancellor did not consider that the Appellant only had two more payments left. The Chancellor erred by stating that he would not accept a payment in the amount of $333.25 for the new attorney fees without taking into account the financial hardship placed on the Appellant. The Chancellor did not allow the Appellant to make suitable payment arrangements. The Appellant was not behind on previous attorney fee payments and the Chancellor erred by having the Appellant incarcerated until the brand new fees could be paid. 10
4. The Chancellor did err by dismissing both of David Vincent's "MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION" that were finally heard on 09/25/2013 and awarding Joan Rickman and her attorney an additional $1000 for attorney fees. The Chancellor did not give Appellant proper time to state his argument and in addition, three bailiffs' surrounded the Appellant in intimidating fashion from behind when he was called to the stand. The Appellant was not attempting to disrespect the Chancellor by filing the "Motion for Reconsideration" and only desired his appeal rights as allowed by the law. The Appellant believes this showed the prejudicial treatment that the Appellee and her attorney Rusty Harlow were allowed in this court case. 5. The Chancellor did err by charging excessive attorney fees awarding Joan Rickman fees in the amount of $1999.50 on 09/04/12, $3125.78 on 06/17/13 and $1000 on 09/20/13. The Chancellor erred when he awarded these attorney's fees to Joan Rickman when she had the ability to pay. The Chancellor erred especially by awarding the additional $3178.25 on 06/17/13 even though Appellee was found to be wrong on the whole reason we were in court. The Chancellor awarded $3178.25 because he found that the Appellant had been late on the September 2012 Child Support Payment. However that late payment was covered by the agreement on 11/14/12 and the parties had agreed that Appellant would pay. After that point, the Appellee continued to assert wrongly that Appellant was still late on child support payments. That was the reason for the later trial on 06/17/13. Appellee was proven wrong by the evidence and the child support payment receipts. (R. Pages 78) 11
ARGUMENT ANSWER TO RESPONSE 1. The Chancellor did err in dismissing the Appellants defense of unclean hands. 2. The Chancellor did err when he found Appellant in Contempt again on June 26 th, 2013. After the Chancellor found the Appellant was not behind on child support or attorney fees as was being asserted by the Appellee there should have been no new contempt finding. In addition, the Chancellor erred by incarcerating the Appellant and denying a reasonable payment plan. 3. The Chancellor erred by placing David Vincent, a local pastor and director of a homeless charity under arrest on 06/26/13 for brand new attorney fees awarded without giving him a reasonable payment plan. The Appellant was willing to pay the court ordered attorney fees as evidenced by the fact that he was up to date on the previous fees of $333.25 per month. The Appellant stated to the Chancellor that he was in a financial hardship and could not pay more. The Appellant stated to the Chancellor in testimony that day that if the Chancellor continued to add fees without giving him proper time to pay then he would be breaking his back. The Chancellor erred by deciding to give the Appellant no time to pay at all and ordered him incarcerated. (R. Pages 49-51) In addition, the Chancellor ordered both attorney's to take a few minutes to have a side bar to see if they could agree on a monthly amount. 12
During the meeting, Appellee Attorney Rusty Harlow would not even discuss any amount he would accept. He stated "The judge already knows what he is about to do so there is no reason to discuss this". Immediately thereafter, The Appellant was ordered by the Chancellor to be incarcerated. The Appellant believes that the facts show unfair treatment by the Chancellor and prove that the decision on what would be done that day was in fact already decided beforehand. The Appellant believes that this is a gross miscarriage of justice and should not be allowed to stand. 4. The Chancellor did err by dismissing both of David Vincent's "MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION" that were finally heard on 09/25/13. The Chancellor did not properly here the facts on previous court dates and did not properly hear the facts on 09/25/13. 5. The Chancellor did err by awarding excessive attorney fees for the Appellee. The Appellant believes that the facts show that the fees were excessive and were part of a system unjustly used by Rusty Harlow, the attorney of the Appellee to financially benefit him. 13
CONCLUSION Appellant David Vincent has sought relief from this court after representing himself against a Petition for Contempt in Chancery court in Desoto County. David Vincent has suffered from unfair actions and the accounting mistakes of Attorney Rusty Harlow which continue to benefit him financially. Many rulings were made that were biased and erroneous. David Vincent has been assessed $6177.75 in attorney fees and has been the victim of unfair legal harassment and contempt filings. The rules of law and civil procedure, as well as case law, support the setting aside of the judgment of the chancery court and an entry of an order for a full hearing on the merits. Only then will justice be served for both of these parties. Appellant request that the Appellee be taxed with all of the cost for her own legal counsel. liy Submitted, David H. Vincent Pro Se David H. Vincent 5422 Peach Trail Dr. Southaven, MS 38671 901-849-3333 14
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED APPELLANT, David Vincent request oral arguments to be heard in his case in order to aid the court in a thorough understanding and resolution of the ultimate issues. 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David H. Vincent, Pro Se, do herby certify that I have personally hand delivered to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 450 High Street, Jackson, MS 39201 and a first class mail, postage prepaid to Rusty Harlow, Attorney, 1360 Sunset Drive Suite 360, Grenada, MS 38901 and Honorable Percy L. Lynchard, Jr., Chancellor, P.o. Box 340, Hernando, MS 38632 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing APPELLANT'S BREIF. so CERTIFIED, this the 22 nd day of August, 2014. David H. Vincent Pro Se 16