|
|
| |
| Wed, Dec. 3, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Court affirms dismissal in Williamson case, contempt finding against Stilley Friday, Sep 15, 2006 By Betsy Turner Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A Fayetteville woman lost an appeal to the state Supreme Court on Thursday in a child support case involving NBA player and former Razorback basketball star Corliss Williamson. The high court also affirmed a contempt of court finding against anti-tax lawyer Oscar Stilley of Fort Smith. Teresa Ann Davis, who has a son with Williamson of the Sacramento Kings, appealed the dismissal of her legal malpractice lawsuit against Helena-West Helena lawyer Vandell Bland. Davis previously sued Bland, claiming he failed to perfect her appeal of a child support award against Williamson from Washington County Circuit Court after the lower court awarded her $3,930 per month in child support, much less than the $24,445 that Davis had sought. In its ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court said the circuit court was correct in dismissing the lawsuit and declining to award damages to Davis. Although Bland's actions "constituted legal malpractice," Davis could not prove she would have prevailed on her appeal, the high court said. Davis had asked the Supreme Court to award her damages of more than $1 million, which she said would have been awarded to her if the appeal had been perfected. In the Stilley case, the high court affirmed the Sebastian County Circuit Court's decision on Jan. 18, 2005, to find the Fort Smith lawyer in contempt of court. Stilley was found in contempt for violating a court order requiring him to provide information as to why he could not pay for sanctions imposed by the court in 2002. The lower court imposed $16,618 in attorneys fees on Stilley in October 2002 for re-litigating a case he had lost. The fees were awarded to the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith and the Fort Smith School District. The Supreme Court rejected Stilley's arguments on appeal, including his contention that the lower court erred in refusing to have a hearing on his motion for recusal of the judge and that it did not provide him adequate notice and opportunity to defend himself. |
