Motions: Rule 11 and denial of sancitons; Lexington Investment Co. vs. Randy Willeroy, COA Published, 3/1/2013

232.  Rule 11.  COA affirmed denial of sanctions.
3/1/2013 Published Decision by COA
Lexington Investment Co. vs. Randy Willeroy
MAZE, JUDGE: Lexington Investment Company, Inc. and Mathew Stockham (collectively, “the Brokers”) appeal1 from an order and judgment by the Fayette Circuit Court denying their motion for sanctions and attorney fees against Randy Willeroy (Willeroy) and his attorneys Cliff and Lynn Stidham (Stidham). The Brokers assert that Willeroy and Stidham brought an action against them without adequately researching the factual and legal basis for the claims. Consequently, they argue that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for sanctions pursuant to Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (“CR”) 11. But while Willeroy’s claims against the Brokers were not successful, we conclude that he and Stidham had a reasonable basis for the claims at the time the action was filed. Hence, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the Brokers’ motion for sanctions.

[gview file=”http://opinions.kycourts.net/coa/2010-CA-001027.pdf”]