Fitch File 3

Case: 47CH1:21-cv-00164-JB Document #: 2 Filed: 04/01/2021 Page 1 of 19
om
.c
ya
la
ba
m
ja
s on
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
c om
a.
l ay
ba
m
ja
on
c ks
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
m
ja
s on
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
m
ja
s on
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF MARSHALL COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
ALEITA M. SULLIVAN FITCH PLAINTIFF
V. CAUSE NO. 21-CV-164-L
W.O. “BILL” FITCH and

LYNN FITCH DEFENDANTS
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Aleita M. Sullivan Fitch (“Plaintiff”), by and through
om
counsel, and asks this Court to immediately grant her a temporary restraining order forcing the
.c
Defendant, Lynn Fitch, to tell her what hospital her husband has been moved to and to order the
ya
Defendant to tell her husband’s treating physicians to keep her informed of her husband’s health
la
status and course of treatment. The Plaintiff states as follows:
ba
1. The Plaintiff is married to Bill Fitch. The Defendant is Bill Fitch’s daughter.
am
2. On or about Friday, March 26, 2021, the Defendant, over the objection of the
nj
Plaintiff, removed Bill Fitch from Baptist Hospital in Oxford, Mississippi where he was being
so
treated for an infection. The Defendant then placed him in another hospital unknown to the
ck
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the undersigned have asked the Defendant to tell them where Bill
Ja
Fitch is located but have gotten no response. The undersigned spoke with the Defendant’s
attorney, Dana Kelly, Esq. on March 30, 2021. Although Mr. Kelly was courteous and informed
the undersigned that the Plaintiff could visit her husband once he was transferred to the Winston
County, Mississippi Medical Center nursing home, he declined to tell the undersigned where Bill
Fitch is currently located.
3. As the wife of Bill Fitch, the Plaintiff has a legal and equitable right to know
where her husband is being treated so she can go and visit him. She also has the legal and
equitable right to speak to his doctors so she can know the full extent of his condition and the
treatment protocols.
4. Lynn Fitch is being represented in this case by attorney Cal Mayo, Esq., although
he has yet to enter an appearance. The undersigned will immediately give Mr. Mayo notice of
the setting of the hearing on the Temporary Restraining Order.
5. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff requests that this
Court immediately grant her a temporary restraining order forcing the Defendant, Lynn Fitch, to
tell her what hospital her husband, Bill Fitch, has been moved to and to order the Defendant to
om
tell her husband’s treating physicians to keep her informed of her husband’s health status and
.c
course of treatment. The Plaintiff prays for any other relief she may be entitled to under the
premises.
ya
la
THIS, the 8th day of April, 2021
ba
Respectfully submitted,
am
s/ S. Ray Hill, III

nj
S. RAY HILL, III, MSB #100088

rhill@claytonodonnell.com
so
Attorney for Plaintiff

ck
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ja
I, S. Ray Hill, III, do hereby certify that I have this date file the foregoing motion using
the Court’s MEC filing system, which sent notification of the filing to all counsel of record. I
also emailed a copy of the motion to the attorney for the Defendant, Cal Mayo, Esq.
s/ S. Ray Hill, III

S. RAY HILL, III
2
om
.c
ya
la
ba
m
n ja
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja

SECOND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
om
counsel, and asks this Court to immediately grant her a temporary restraining order prohibiting
.c
Defendant, Lynn Fitch (“Defendant”), from taking any further actions related to the business
ya
dealings of her husband, W.O. “Bill” Fitch, and in support would state as follows:
la
1. The Plaintiff is married to Bill Fitch. The Defendant is Bill Fitch’s daughter.
ba
2. The Plaintiff reiterates the allegations made in her original Motion for Temporary
am
Restraining Order.
nj
3. In addition, the Defendant is currently making business decisions for Bill Fitch
so
that she has no authority to make.

ck
4. Specifically, the Defendant is making business decisions related to the operation

Ja
of “Fitch Farms,” which is a working farm and hunting destination in Marshall County,
Mississippi. She is instructing the farm manager to take certain actions related to the
management of the farm. She has instructed the farm manager to cancel all of Fitch Farms
hunting reservations and told the farm manager to stop taking future hunting reservations,
effectively bringing the business to a standstill. She has had locks placed on the doors of the
Fitch Farms hunting lodge.

5. The Defendant recently entered the Plaintiff’s residence when the Plaintiff was
tending to her husband at the hospital and took approximately $2,000 in cash, went through the
personal effects of the Plaintiff and Bill Fitch, removed all fire arms from the home, and
instructed her bodyguards to take from an employee one of Bill’s guns.
6. The Defendant has had locks placed on the gates at the Farm where the Plaintiff’s
cattle are located.
7. The Defendant has repeatedly engaged in a course of intimidating conduct toward
the Plaintiff and Bill Fitch by showing up unannounced with armed bodyguards at the marital
om
home, the lodge and the hospital.
.c
8. The Defendant has gone through Bill Fitch’s personal business records without
his permission and without any authority.

ya
la
ba
9. The Defendant has no authority to make these business decisions on behalf of Bill
Fitch. In fact, Bill Fitch expressly revoked the durable power of attorney in favor of the
am
Defendant on September 14, 2020.

nj
10. It is clear that Bill Fitch has no desire for the Defendant to operate his business or
so
run his financial affairs.

ck
11. As such, the Plaintiff requests that this Court immediately schedule a hearing on
Ja
this Second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and enjoin the Defendant from taking any
further actions related to the management of Bill Fitch’s personal affairs and businesses.
12. The Plaintiff further requests that the Defendant be enjoined from entering the
premises at Fitch farms, house, and lodge and that she be enjoined from using her bodyguards to
intimidate the Plaintiff and assist her in carrying out her unauthorized actions.
2
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff requests that this Court
immediately grant her a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Defendant, Lynn Fitch, from
taking any further actions related to the management of Bill Fitch’s personal affairs and
businesses. The Plaintiff further requests that the Defendant be enjoined from entering the
premises at Fitch farms, house and lodge, and that she be enjoined from using her bodyguards to
intimidate the Plaintiff and assist her in carrying out her unauthorized actions. The Plaintiff
prays for any other relief she may be entitled to under the premises.
om
.c
s/ S. Ray Hill, III
ya
la
ba
am
nj
the Court’s MEC filing system, which sent notification of the filing to all counsel of record.
so
ck

Ja
s/ S. Ray Hill, III

S. RAY HILL, III
3
IN THE CHANCERY COURT

OF MARSHALL COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
ALEITA M. SULLIVAN FITCH PETITIONER
V. CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-00164

LYNN FITCH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT LYNN FITCH’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS OF PETITIONER ALEITA FITCH
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS
om
Respondent Lynn Fitch responds in opposition to Petitioner Aleita Fitch’s First and
.c
Second Motions for Temporary Restraining Order. This Court should deny Aleita Fitch’s
ya
attempts to circumvent clear Mississippi law. In support, Lynn Fitch shows unto the Court:
la
FACTS1
ba
Respondent W.O. “Bill” Fitch is eighty-seven-years old and his spouse, Aleta Fitch, is
am
eighty. On September 8, 2020, Bill Fitch, the father of Lynn Fitch, executed an Advance Health
nj
Care Directive/Power of Attorney for Health Care (the “AHD”) giving authority to Lynn Fitch to
so
make health care decisions for him if he became unable to make decisions for himself. Bill Fitch
ck
designated Lisa Fitch Wavro, his only other child, as a first alternate agent in the AHD. Upon
Ja
information and belief, on January 1, 2021, Bill Fitch suffered a heart attack and a stroke and
was admitted to Baptist Hospital–North Mississippi in Oxford for treatment. Aleita checked him
out of the hospital the next day. Aleita did not notify Lynn Fitch or Lisa Fitch about the stroke
and heart attack or the admission and immediate discharge at BH-NM. Instead, she had Bill
“sign” a revocation of their pre-nuptial agreement on January 12, 2021.
1
See Affidavit of Lynn Fitch, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Fitch was readmitted to BH-NM on March 18, 2021, for injuries from a fall he suffered
while at home in Aleita’s care. When Lynn Fitch observed her father on March 19, 2021, he
appeared confused, delirious and malnourished, had limited mobility, and was generally unable
to care for himself. Lynn Fitch also feared that her father had not received proper care for some
time and needed immediate attention and intervention. In conversations with Bill Fitch’s
medical providers, Lynn learned that Bill had undergone an MRI earlier in 2021 that indicated
he was suffering from dementia, that he had previously suffered a stroke and a heart attack in
om
January, and that he was currently suffering from pneumonia and a fungal infection. An MRI
.c
scan performed in March confirmed the dementia diagnosis. Lynn also learned that Bill’s
ya
dementia was being exacerbated by his abuse of alcohol provided by Aleita.
la
Using the AHD, Lynn took charge of her father’s health care needs, including consulting
ba
with his doctors to determine a course of care to improve his condition. While at BH-NM, Lynn
am
and Lisa observed Aleita verbally and mentally abusing their father on several occasions. The
nj
medical professionals and staff also observed this verbal and mental abuse, resulting in Aleita’s
so
forced departure from BH-NM on at least two occasions. Bill’s treating physician also
ck
communicated to Lynn that Aleita should not have unsupervised access to Bill’s room. At some
Ja
point, a BH-NM staff person filed a vulnerable adult complaint against Aleita for her emotional
abuse of Bill Fitch.
On March 26, 2021, Lynn moved Bill to another Baptist Hospital for further treatment.
She has since transferred him to a rehabilitation and long-term care facility. As of April 19,
2021, Bill’s physical, emotional, and mental condition has improved dramatically. He is eating
and obtaining appropriate nutrition. His fungal infection has resolved. He no longer has access
2
to alcohol and is performing exercises to improve his physical mobility. He generally receives an
appropriate level of care. In consultation with his doctors, Lynn has determined that a
significant amount of his improvement is associated with removing Aleita from his presence.
ARGUMENT
1. Aleita Fitch has no right to injunctive relief from Lynn Fitch.
Aleita Fitch has asked this Court in two separate motions to issue temporary restraining
orders including 1) a mandatory order forcing “Lynn Fitch, to tell her what hospital her
om
husband, Bill Fitch, has been moved to and to order the Defendant to tell her husband’s
.c
treating physicians to keep her informed of her husband’s health status and course of
ya
treatment”; and 2) orders “prohibiting the Defendant, Lynn Fitch, from taking any further
la
actions related to the management of Bill Fitch’s personal affairs and businesses,” and an order
ba
enjoining Lynn Fitch “from entering the premises at Fitch farms, house and lodge, and that she
am
be enjoined from using her bodyguards to intimidate the Plaintiff and assist her in carrying out
nj
her unauthorized actions.”

so
A mandatory injunction is “a harsh remedy that is not favored by courts and should only
ck
be used in cases of great necessity.” Ruff v. Estate of Ruff, 989 So. 2d 366, 370 (Miss. 2008)
Ja
(citing Punzo v. Jackson County, 861 So. 2d 340, 347 (Miss. 2003)). The Supreme Court has
made it clear that Aletia’s request for relief is an extraordinary one:
Nothing is better settled in this state, and nothing is or ought to be better

understood, than the rule that a mandatory injunction should never issue unless
the right to it is so clearly and certainly shown that there can be no reasonable
doubt of its propriety, no probability that the defendant can make any valid
objection to it and no possibility that its justice can be controverted.
3
Punzo, 861 So. 2d at 347 (citing Thomas v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 152 So. 269, 271
(Miss. 1934)) (emphasis added).
Additionally, like any other application for temporary injunctive relief, Aleita must show
that “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant” without the
relief sought. See Miss. R. Civ. Pro. R. Rule 65(b). For a preliminary or permanent injunction, the
applicant must show (1) a substantial likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits; (2) the
injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury to the plaintiffs
om
outweighs the harm an injunction might do to the defendants; and (4) entry of a preliminary
.c
injunction is consistent with the public interest. A-1 Pallet Co. v. City of Jackson, 40 So. 3d 563,
ya
568 (Miss. 2010). To prevail in her request for extraordinary, mandatory relief, Aletia must
la
satisfy all of these showings. She can satisfy none of them.
ba
a. There is no likelihood of success on the merits, much less a “substantial” likelihood.

am
1. The Advanced Health Care Directive bestows Lynn with legal authority.
nj
Mississippi has adopted the Uniform Health Care Decisions Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 41-
so
41-201 et seq., which governs the designation, revocation and authority conveyed by a health
ck
care directive or health care power of attorney. Specifically, Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-217
Ja
governs the rights to disclosure of medical and health care information. This section provides
that “[u]nless otherwise specified in an advance health-care directive, a person then authorized
to make healthcare decisions for a patient has the same rights as the patient to request,
receive, examine, copy and consent to the disclosure of medical or any other health-care
information.” Id. (emphasis added).
4
Here the AHD designated Lynn Fitch as the attorney-in-fact for making health care
decisions for Bill Fitch, once he became unable to make his own health care decisions. Bill Fitch
was incapacitated when he arrived at Baptist Hospital of Oxford on March 18, 2021. Lynn Fitch,
in consultation with Bill’s primary treating physician, confirmed that Bill was incapacitated and
unable to make health care decisions. At that point, Lynn Fitch, under the clear statutory
authority and as provided in the AHD, began making health care decisions for her father.
Aleita’s continuing verbal and emotional abuse of her father presented Lynn with a
om
serious problem concerning her father’s immediate and long-term health. In consultation with
.c
Bill’s primary treating physician, Lynn determined that Aleita did not need and would not have
ya
access to Bill for fear she would continue to verbally abuse Bill. When Lynn relocated her father
la
to another hospital, Lynn withheld disclosure to Aleita of any further health care information,
ba
including Bill’s location, to prevent further emotional and verbal abuse. Mississippi law and the
am
AHD clearly give disclosure authority to Lynn Fitch, her father’s attorney-in-fact. As such, Lynn
nj
Fitch has legal authority to withhold disclosure from Aleita. In sum, Aleita has no likelihood of
so
success on the merits of her claim seeking an order requiring disclosure of any of Bill Fitch’s
ck
health care information, including his location.

Ja
2. The conservator petition moots Aleita’s request related to Bill Fitch’s finances.
The motion for temporary relief related to Bill’s personal and business finances also
fails. Although Lynn Fitch has knowledge of her father’s personal financial and business
interests, she does not exercise and has not exercised control over those interests. Jerry Fitch,
the Vice President of Fidelity National Loans (Bill’s primary source of income) and a nephew of
Bill Fitch, has overseen, to the extent not disrupted by Aleita, those interests.
5
Lynn and Lisa, through Jerry, have discovered several financial irregularities, which led
them to seek appointment of a conservator to prevent Aleita’s continued squandering and
endangerment of Bill’s assets. For example, Lynn and Lisa discovered: 1) the liability insurance
covering Fitch Farms lapsed preventing further hunting excursion business, 2) funds for an
upcoming loan payment to the Mississippi Land Bank had not been reserved which could trigger
default and a foreclosure proceeding, 3) casualty insurance for farm equipment was allowed to
lapse leading to a total loss of over $100,000 on burned farm equipment, 4) funds were being
om
squandered on alleged home health care for but not provided to Bill, 5) cattle and other
.c
livestock were not receiving proper care and required ongoing expenditures for nutrition, and
ya
6) Bill Fitch had overpaid some taxes and underpaid other taxes owed to the IRS. These and
la
other irregularities led Lynn and Lisa to file their Petition for Appointment of a Conservator,
ba
which moots the relief Aleita seeks related to oversight of Bill’s finances.
am
Moreover, Aleita consented to Jerry and Lynn’s involvement in Bill’s business affairs on
nj
or about April 9, 2021. On that date, Aleita bundled and delivered to Jerry for payment the
so
unpaid bills along with the key to Bill’s P.O. Box.

ck
3. Aleita’s second motion is procedurally barred.

Ja
Finally, as to the second motion, Aleita has wholly failed to follow Rule 65 in making her
request. Rule 65 specifically requires either an affidavit or sworn complaint outlining specific
facts. Not only are no facts articulated in the second motion, but it is also not sworn. Unlike the
first motion which derives from and relies on the Verified Complaint, Aleita has provided no
6
corresponding affidavit or sworn complaint outlining the facts supporting the second motion.2
For this additional reason, Aleita has no likelihood of success on the merits.
b. Aleita cannot satisfy the remaining factors required to obtain injunctive relief.
Aleita cannot show that an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury to her.
She has not identified any loss she will suffer if Lynn does not disclose information about Bill’s
health condition. As to the relief sought related to Bill’s personal and business finances, the
appointment of a conservator, which all parties agree is necessary, moots this issue.
om
The harm, if any, to Aleita from lack of access to Bill and his medical information does
.c
not outweigh the harm to Bill from Aleita’s continued abuse.
ya
Finally, Aleita cannot show that the entry of a temporary mandatory order serves the
la
public interest. On the other hand, strong policy reasons exist for limiting the disclosure of
ba
health care information, as demonstrated with the passage of the Uniform Health Care
am
Decisions Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-201 et seq. The relief sought by Aleita would force this
nj
Court to order Lynn to disclose medical information that the Mississippi legislature has
so
authorized Lynn, as her father’s attorney-in-fact, to withhold from Aleita.

ck
CONCLUSION
Ja
Not a single factor shows, or even suggests, that Aleita should receive the temporary
mandatory injunctive relief she requests. The Mississippi legislature adopted the Uniform
Health Care Decisions Act so a person could authorize an attorney-in-fact to make health care
decisions and to limit disclosure of health care information. Furthermore, not only is Lynn not
2
Of special significance is the lack of any supporting facts for the request to enjoin Lynn from access to
Fitch Farms or the use of her bodyguards.
7
controlling Bill’s financial or business affairs, Aleita did not properly plead any facts supporting
this relief, which falls far outside the allegations of her Complaint. Aleita also consented to the
involvement of Jerry Fitch and Lynn Fitch in those financial affairs. This Court should deny both
motions for temporary relief.
Finally, out of an abundance of caution, Lynn Fitch specifically and broadly reserves any
and all rights she may have related to this matter, including all defenses and/or counterclaims
that may be available to her now or as may be disclosed in discovery.
om
This the 22nd day of April 2021.
.c
ya
LYNN FITCH
la
/s/ John D. Mayo
ba
J. CAL MAYO, JR. (MB NO. 8492)
JOHN D. MAYO (MB NO. 102463)
am
Attorneys for Lynn Fitch
Of Counsel:
nj
so
Mayo Mallette PLLC

5 University Office Park
ck
2094 Old Taylor Road, Suite 200

Post Office Box 1456
Ja
Oxford, Mississippi 38655

Telephone: (662) 236-0055
Facsimile: (662) 236-0035
cmayo@mayomallette.com
jmayo@mayomallette.com
8
I, John D. Mayo, one of the attorneys for Lynn Fitch, do certify that I have electronically
filed this document with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent notification of
such filing to all attorneys of record. I also certify that I have served via electronic mail, a copy of
this document on the following counsel:
S. Ray Hill III

Clayton O’Donnell PLLC
P.O. Drawer 676
Oxford, MS 38655-0676
om
Attorney for Aleita Fitch
.c
THIS, the 22nd day of April 2021.
ya
la
/s/ John D. Mayo
ba
JOHN D. MAYO
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
9
Case: 47CH1:21-cv-00164-JB Document #: 11-1 Filed: 04/22/2021 Page 1 of 3
IN THE CHANCERY COURT

A
OF MARSHALL COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
ALEITA M. SULLIVAN FITCH PETITIONER
v. CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-00164
W.O. "BILL" FITCH and

LYNN FITCH RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT OF LYNN FITCH IN OPPOSfflON TO FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS OF PETITIONER ALETIA FITCH FOR nMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
om
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned deponent who being duly sworn,
c
deposes and says on oath the following:
a.
1. ay
I am Lynn Fitch, a resident citizen of Madison County, Mississippi, and I have
l
personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
ba
2. My father, W.O. "Bill" Fitch, is eighty-seven-years old and his spouse, Aleita
m
ja
Fitch, is eighty.
on
3. On September 8, 2020, Bill Fitch executed an Advance Health Care

ks
Directive/Power of Attorney for Health Care (the "AHD") giving authority to me to make health
c
Ja
care decisions for him if he became unable to make decisions for himself.
4. Bill designated Lisa Fitch Wavro, my sister and his only other child, as a first
alternate agent in the AHD.
5. Upon information and belief, on January 1, 2021, Bill Fitch suffered a heart
attack and a stroke and was admitted to Baptist Hospital-North Mississippi in Oxford for
treatment. Aleita checked him out of the hospital the next day. Aleita did not notify me or Lisa
Fitch about the stroke and heart attack or the admission and immediate discharge at BH-NM.
c om
a.
l ay
ba
m
ja
on
c ks
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
m
ja
s on
ck
Ja
o m
a .c
l ay
ba
m
ja
s on
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
m
ja
s on
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
a m
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja

(consolidated with) CAUSE NO. 21-CV-176
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONERVATORSHIP

OF WILLIAM O. FITCH
om
THIRD MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
.c
AND FOR OTHER RELIEF
ya
la
ba
counsel, and asks this Court to immediately enjoin Lynn Fitch and Lisa Wavro Fitch (“the Fitch
Sisters”) from making any further decisions concerning William “Bill” Fitch’s medical
am
treatment, and to order that the doctors for Mr. Fitch take whatever steps medically necessary to
nj
prolong his life, including but not limited to the placement of a feeding tube to allow Mr. Fitch to
so
receive life sustaining food and water. The Plaintiff further requests that this Court modify its
ck
“Temporary Order on Visitation Issues” to allow her additional visitation with her husband and
Ja
to allow her to talk directly to Mr. Fitch’s treating physician, Dr. Michael Ard, due to a material
change of circumstances in Mr. Fitch’s health status. The Plaintiff also asks that Mr. Fitch be
moved to a reputable nursing home closer to his home so he can resume treatment under his
regular medical care providers.
In support, the Plaintiff states as follows:

FACTS
1. The Plaintiff is married to Bill Fitch. The Fitch sisters are Mr. Fitch’s daughters.
2. On or about Friday, March 26, 2021, the Fitch Sisters, over the objection of the
Plaintiff, removed Bill Fitch from Baptist Hospital in Oxford, Mississippi where he was being
treated for an infection. The Fitch Sisters then placed him in another hospital unknown to the
Plaintiff. The Fitch Sisters then refused to tell the Plaintiff where Mr. Fitch was located, thereby
denying her access to her husband.
3. As a result, the Plaintiff was forced to file the instant lawsuit in order to see her
om
husband and to learn his health status. After an excruciating wait of over seventy-eight (78)
.c
days, the Plaintiff was finally allowed to visit her husband, who by this time had been moved to a
ya
nursing home in Winston County, Mississippi and placed under the care of Dr. Michael Ard, a
la
ba
physician who had never treated him before. The Plaintiff is only allowed to visit her husband
three (3) days a week and is not allowed to speak with Dr. Ard.
am
4. Even though she is eighty (80) years old and it is over one hundred and thirty
nj
(130) miles from the Plaintiff’s home in Marshall County, Mississippi to the nursing home in
so
Winston County, Mississippi, the Plaintiff has steadfastly made every single visit to see her
ck
husband, who she loves dearly. This continued travel and inability to learn much of anything
Ja
concerning her husband’s health status has caused her extreme anxiety and mental stress.
Nevertheless, she presses forward due to her unwavering commitment to her beloved husband.
5. Last night, the Court appointed Guardian ad Litem for Mr. Fitch, David Calder,
Esq., issued his “Fourth Preliminary Report” concerning his investigation into Bill Fitch’s
physical and mental condition. According to this report, Mr. Fitch’s health status is precarious.
He has apparently lost weight due to the refusal of the Fitch Sisters to authorize the placement of
2
a feeding tube to allow Mr. Fitch to receive nourishment. This has also led to Mr. Fitch being
placed in hospice care. It appears clear from Mr. Calder’s report that without a feeding tube, Mr.
Fitch may not live much longer.
6. Even though Mr. Calder is the Court appointed Guardian ad Litem for Mr. Fitch,
the Fitch Sisters are still making health care decisions for Mr. Fitch due to a dubiously obtained
Advanced Health Care Directive (“AHD”). As this Court knows, the AHD was signed by Mr.
Fitch on September 8, 2020, the same day Bill Fitch also signed a General Durable Power of
Attorney in favor of the Defendant.
om
7. As this Court also knows, Mr. Fitch executed a Revocation of the General
.c
Durable Power of Attorney just a week later. Mr. Fitch apparently did not know that he had also
ya
signed the AHD on the same date. Otherwise, logic holds that he would have also revoked the
la
ba
AHD just as he had the power of attorney.
8. The Plaintiff does not believe that the Fitch Sisters actions are in the best interests
am
of Mr. Fitch, given their unilateral decision to remove Mr. Fitch from his home and his regular
nj
treating physicians, and to send him to a nursing home over 130 miles away to a town that he has
so
no connection to whatsoever. Since they took these unilateral actions, Mr. Fitch’s condition has
ck
deteriorated considerably to the point that he is now at risk of dying.

Ja
9. To make matters worse, it appears that Dr. Ard and the staff at the Winston
County nursing home are not following basic protocols for the feeding of individuals with
delayed “swallowing,” so as to avoid aspiration of food. These protocols demand that Mr. Fitch
be fed while sitting up as opposed to lying down.
3
REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
10. In determining whether a restraining order is warranted, this Court must
determine (1) whether there exists a substantial likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevail on the
merits; (2) whether the injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) whether the
threatened injury to the Plaintiff outweighs the harm an injunction might do to the Defendants;
and (4) whether entry of a preliminary injunction is consistent with the public interest.
11. Given that Mr. Fitch has already revoked the general power of attorney granted
the Fitch Sisters, and due to the fact that he did not know that he had signed an AHD in favor of
om
the Fitch Sisters, it is obvious to everyone that Mr. Fitch would not want the Fitch Sisters in
.c
charge of his health care decisions. These decisions should be made by his court appointed
ya
Guardian Ad Litem, Mr. David Calder, at least for the immediate future. For this reason, there is
la
ba
a substantial likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevail on her request that the AHD be revoked.
12. In regard to the remaining three (3) factors, this injunction is necessary to prolong
am
Mr. Fitch’s life. If this Court does not enjoin the Fitch Sisters by ordering the placement of a
nj
feeding tube, Mr. Fitch will likely die. The best course of action would be to order the placement
so
of a feeding tube, even temporarily, to allow Mr. Calder and the parties the time to obtain all
ck
necessary medical records and to discuss all available options with Dr. Ard.
Ja
13. This also allows time for Dr. Ard to schedule a full psychological and mental
evaluation of Mr. Fitch in the near future, which apparently he has failed to already do. Upon
information and belief, Dr. Ard is not a neurologist. It would be in Mr. Fitch’s best interest to
have a complete neurological evaluation done as soon as possible to determine the scope of any
progressive neurological issues, because that will necessarily inform his course of treatment.
4
14. The Plaintiff also asks that Mr. Fitch be moved to a reputable nursing home closer
to his home so he can resume treatment under his regular medical care providers. Since he left
their care, his condition has worsened to the point of needing hospice care. Moving him back to
Oxford, Mississippi or Marshall County, Mississippi will allow his regular physicians to resume
their treatment of him and will also make it easier for his friends and family to visit him.
MODIFICATION OF TEMPORARY ORDER ON VISITATION ISSUES
15. Since the Plaintiff is not allowed to speak with Dr. Ard, her knowledge of her
husband’s health status is limited to what she can glean from Mr. Calder’s reports and her own
om
personal observations of Mr. Fitch during their visits. The report issued by Mr. Calder last night
.c
establishes that a material change in circumstances regarding Mr. Fitch’s health status has
ya
occurred. He is not doing well and he is in hospice. Given that the Plaintiff and Mr. Fitch’s time
la
ba
together is limited, she respectfully requests that she be allowed to visit her husband every day, if
possible. Furthermore, her lack of knowledge concerning her husband’s health care status is
am
excruciating and unbearable. Not knowing specifically what is going on as she watches her
nj
beloved husband deteriorate is pure torture. As such, she further requests that this Court allow
so
her to discuss with Dr. Ard her husband’s health care status and course of treatment.
ck
16. The Plaintiff requests any other relief she may be entitled to under the
Ja
circumstances.
7-1-21
s/ S. Ray Hill, III

5
THIS, the 1st day of July, 2021
s/ S. Ray Hill, III

S. RAY HILL, III
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
6
V. CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-164JB

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP

WILLIAM O. FITCH CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-176JB
LYNN FITCH AND LISA FITCH WAVRO PETITIONERS
om
PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO ALEITA FITCH’S THIRD MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO
.c
(I) TERMINATE TEMPORARY ORDER ON VISITATION ISSUES, AND
(II) PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO TREATING PHYSICIAN
ya
Petitioners Lynn Fitch and Lisa Wavro object to the Third Motion for Temporary
la
ba
Restraining Order filed by Aleita Fitch seeking to invalidate the specific instructions expressed
am
by William O. Fitch in his Advanced Health Care Directive. Lynn and Lisa request that this Court
terminate Aleita’s temporary visitation rights granted by Temporary Order as inconsistent with
nj
so
the legal authority vested in Lynn by her father and because of Aleita’s violation of this Court’s
ck
instructions concerning her behavior during her visits with Mr. Fitch. Lynn and Lisa also request
Ja
that this Court permit disclosure to Mr. Fitch’s treating physician of the confidential information
about possible abuse and neglect of Mr. Fitch. In support, Lynn and Lisa state:
1. William O. Fitch currently undergoes in-patient care and treatment in the
Winston County Nursing Home in Louisville, Mississippi, and lacks capacity to make health care
decisions. Under the provisions of his Advanced Health Care Directive issued in September 2020
(Ex. “A” to this Response), Mr. Fitch appointed Lynn, his oldest daughter, as his agent charged
with making health care decisions for him. Mr. Fitch has entrusted his health care to Lynn for
many years, as he first executed an Advanced Health Care Directive naming her as his agent in
2010 (Ex. “B” to this Response). At the time he signed the first Directive, Mr. Fitch was married
to Joan Bond. He divorced Joan in January 2012 and married Aleita in August 2013. Mr. Fitch
never provided Joan or Aleita with a power of attorney for health care purposes. Mr. Fitch has
only assigned this responsibility to Lynn, with Lisa as the alternate agent. Mr. Fitch has never
revoked the 2020 and 2010 Health Care Directives, which are generally consistent. This Court
should deny Aleita’s efforts to invalidate the 2020 Advanced Health Care Directive explicitly or
om
implicitly. Even if the Court finds some basis to invalidate the 2020 Advanced Health Care
.c
Directive, the Court should enforce the 2010 Advanced Health Care Directive.
ya
2. Over Lynn’s objection, this Court granted Aleita temporary visitation rights. See
la
Temporary Order on Visitation Issues (June 10, 2021). To protect Mr. Fitch’s health and avoid
ba
further destabilizing his condition, the Court instructed the parties not to talk “with Mr. Fitch
am
about any issues that would cause him to be upset, or to suffer any emotional distress. This
nj
includes speaking in derogatory or negative terms about the opposing party, or in any way
so
attempting to denigrate the opposing party, or alienate Mr. Fitch from the opposing party.”
ck
During her visit, Aleita violated these directions, resulting in a confrontation with the nursing
Ja
home facility staff. See Email from Vowell to Calder (June 21, 2021) (Ex. “C” to this Response).
Because of Lynn’s authority to limit access to Mr. Fitch and because of Aleita’s disregard for this
Court’s instructions, this Court should terminate Aleita’s visitation rights.
3. Since the outset of this matter, information has developed about the neglect and
emotional abuse of Mr. Fitch. This confidential information is subject to limited distribution by
law and by order of this Court. As the treating physician for Mr. Fitch, Dr. Ard should have
2
access to this information as he makes recommendations about the course of treatment for Mr.
Fitch and the amount of access to Mr. Fitch by any person who has previously abused or
neglected Mr. Fitch.
BACKGROUND
4. Mr. Fitch is a long-time resident of Marshall County, Mississippi. He and his first
wife had two daughters, Lynn and Lisa.
5. After the death of his first wife, Mr. Fitch married Joan, with whom he had no
om
children. Mr. Fitch and Joan divorced in 2011. Mr. Fitch married Aleita in 2013. Before their
.c
wedding, Mr. Fitch and Aleita signed a detailed and extensive prenuptial agreement which
ya
segregated their respective financial interests (Ex. “D” to this Response).
la
6. Mr. Fitch has never entrusted decisions about his health care to any of his wives.
ba
Instead, while married to Joan, he initially gave this authority to Lynn. After his divorce from
am
Joan and his marriage to Aleita, Mr. Fitch renewed this trust in Lynn by executing a second
nj
health care directive giving Lynn broad power to make his health care decisions:
so
My agent [Lynn] is authorized to make all health-care decisions for me,

ck
including decisions to provide, withhold, or withdraw artificial nutrition

and hydration, and all other forms of health care to keep me alive.
Ja
My agent shall make health-care decisions for me in accordance with this

power of attorney for health care, any instructions I give in Part 2 of this
form, and my other wishes to the extent know[n] to my agent. To the
extent my wishes are unknown, my agent shall make health-care
decisions for me in accordance with what my agent determines to be in
my best interest. In determining my best interest, my agent shall consider
my personal values to the extent known to my agent.
See 2020 Advanced Health Care Directive (Ex. “A” to this Response).
3
7. For many years, Mr. Fitch has been under the care of Dr. Ruth Fredericks, a
neurologist in Jackson, Mississippi, for radiculopathy, tremors related to Parkinson’s disease,
ataxia, and memory concerns. See St. Dominic’s Medical Record Excerpts (Ex. “E” to this
Response) (under seal), and Frederick Medical Records (Ex. “F” to this Response) (under seal).
For several years, Mr. Fitch has lacked the ability to ambulate, relying on others and the use of
a walker and wheelchair. Aleita rejected Dr. Frederickson’s diagnosis and the recommended
treatment.
om
8. At some point on December 31, 2020, Mr. Fitch suffered a stroke. On the
.c
afternoon of January 1, 2021, Aleita presented him for admission at Baptist Hospital-North
ya
Mississippi in Oxford. By then, the critical time had passed for administering medicine to
la
dissolve blood clots. Medical professionals noted the following about his condition at the time
ba
of his admission or later at his discharge:

am
• Chief Complaint: CVA Symptoms (slurred speech/facial droop)

• Swallow Screen: Fail
nj
• Acute stroke in the left periventricular area

so
• Tinea cruris, persistent [jock itch]

• Macrocytosis, possibly due to alcohol intake (3 glasses of wine daily)
ck
The hospital also counseled Mr. Fitch about Alcohol Abuse Disorder. See Excerpts from BMH-
Ja
NM Records (Ex. “G” to this Response) (under seal).
9. After Mr. Fitch’s discharge on January 2, 2021, Aleita returned him to his rural
home outside of Holly Springs in Marshall County. Aleita failed to arrange any speech, physical
and occupational therapy to assist Mr. Fitch in his recovery from the stroke. Aleita never
mentioned the stroke or Mr. Fitch’s hospitalization to Lynn or Lisa or any of Mr. Fitch’s other
family members.
4
10. On January 12, 2021, Aleita had Mr. Fitch sign a revocation of his prenuptial
agreement. See Agreement for Revocation of Prenuptial Agreement (Ex. “H” to this Response).
11. On March 18, 2021, Aleita returned to Baptist Hospital-North Mississippi with
Mr. Fitch. By this time, Mr. Fitch’s condition had dramatically deteriorated. Again, Aleita did not
notify Lynn or Lisa. The medical staff noted the following about Mr. Fitch’s medical condition:
• Generalized weakness and fall (strike to head with bruises)

• Failure to thrive after stroke
• Severe deconditioning after stroke
• Legally blind and macular degeneration
om
• Alcohol abuse
• Severe Malnutrition: Acute
.c
• Severe infection in genital area
ya
• Vascular dementia after stroke
la
See Excerpts from BMH-NM Records (Ex. “I” to this Response) (under seal).
ba
12. From all indications, Aleita had provided no physical therapy for Mr. Fitch after
am
his discharge from the hospital on January 2. He remained in his home in Marshall County and
nj
existed on a steady diet of alcohol. The fall in March which resulted in his admission to Baptist
so
Hospital likely saved Mr. Fitch’s life. The combination of long overdue attention from health
ck
care professionals, a nutritious diet, abstinence from alcohol, and the control of his health care
Ja
by Lynn reversed the months of neglect following his stroke.
13. Over the course of his treatment at Baptist Hospital-North Mississippi and later
at Baptist Hospital-Medical Center (Jackson) and at the facility in Winston County, Mr. Fitch’s
physical condition improved dramatically. He could feed himself and sit up in a chair. His color
improved, and his weight stabilized. He has received appropriate therapy and has developed a
5
comfort with his surroundings. In May, Mr. Fitch battled pneumonia, not an uncommon
condition for someone with his health complications.
14. Unfortunately, while his medical providers have aided his physical recovery, Mr.
Fitch’s mental condition has not improved and has, instead, diminished over time. He now lacks
the capacity to make decisions for himself, including his health care See Medical Affidavits of
Dr. Mark Webb and Dr. Kenneth Ball (collectively, Ex. “J” to this Response).
I. Mr. Fitch has long expected Lynn to serve as his agent for health care decisions
when he lost capacity to make those decisions. He never provided any such
om
authority or responsibility to Aleita. This Court should deny Aleita’s Motion.
.c
15. Since March 2010, Mr. Fitch has relied on Lynn to make health care decisions in
ya
the event of his incapacity. He never provided any such authority to Aleita. In case of any doubt
la
about the continuing viability of his decision, Mr. Fitch repeated his wishes in September 2020,
ba
again naming Lynn as his agent and Lisa as at the alternate agent, just as he had ten years
am
earlier. While Aleita observes that Mr. Fitch also signed and then revoked a general power of
nj
attorney concerning Lynn in September of last year, she draws an irrational conclusion
so
concerning the relationship between the general power of attorney and the advanced health
ck
care directive. He already had granted a power of attorney in favor of Richard Dobbins. See
Ja
General Power of Attorney (Ex. “K” to this Response). He obviously decided to leave that power
of attorney in place (rather than to change this authority to Lynn). However, consistent with his
previously expressed desires for control over his health care decisions, Mr. Fitch left that power
and authority with Lynn.
16. Mississippi law presumes Mr. Fitch had the capacity to give an advance health-
care directive naming Lynn as his agent. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-223. Mississippi law also
6
dictates that Mr. Fitch can revoke the designation of Lynn as his agent only by a signed writing
or by personally informing his supervising health care provider. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-207(1).
In her Motion, Aleita does not contend that Mr. Fitch (i) lacked capacity to name Lynn as his
agent under the 2020 Directive, (ii) revoked the designation of Lynn as his agent in signed
writing, or (ii) revoked the designation by communicating personally to his supervising health
care provider. The 2020 Advanced Health Care Directive remains valid.
17. Aleita has attempted to create a medical emergency where none exists. Mr.
om
Fitch is receiving excellent medical are at the nursing home facility. The nutrition he receives
.c
sustains his life. No medical proof suggests that the lack of nutrition is threatening his life.
ya
Instead, the medical staff is feeding him soluble foods consistent with his medical condition and
la
his current limitations on swallowing whole foods. The hysteria created by false allegations of
ba
the need for “a feeding tube to allow Mr. Fitch to receive life sustaining food and water” do not
am
aid in the care and treatment of Mr. Fitch.

nj
18. This Court should deny Aleita’s request to invalidate the health care directive
so
and Mr. Fitch’s desires in favor of her personal decisions about Mr. Fitch’s health care.
ck
II. The Advanced Health Care Directive gives Lynn authority to control all aspects
Ja
of Mr. Fitch’s health care, including access to him and information about his
condition. Aleita violated this Court’s directions about appropriate conduct.
This Court should revoke the Temporary Order on Visitation Issues.
19. On May 28, 2021, the Guardian Ad Litem recommended certain visitation for
Aleita. Lynn and Lisa objected. See Objection to Recommendation [Doc. 15]. Afterward and over
their Objection, the Court permitted Aleita to visit Mr. Fitch and to access his medical records.
See Temporary Order on Visitation. This Court should rescind that Temporary Order.
7
20. Absent express limitation, a health care directive places the agent in the shoes of
the patient as relates to the patient’s health care. “Unless otherwise specified in an advance
health-care directive, a person then authorized to make healthcare decisions for a patient has
the same rights as the patient to request, receive, examine, copy and consent to the disclosure
of medical or any other health-care information.” Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-217. Absent his
incapacity, Mr. Fitch would have the ability to control access to his person and access to
information about his health care, including his physicians and his medical records. Through the
om
health care directive, that power and authority now rest with Lynn. As a result, Lynn can
.c
determine (consistent with the policies of the medical care facility) who may visit with her
ya
father, when those visits may occur, the conditions for those visits, and the information about
la
her father’s which can be shared and to whom. Aleita has no legal right to access to Mr. Fitch or
ba
to information about his health condition.

am
21. On June 21, 2021, two weeks after receiving this Court’s admonition about
nj
Aleita’s expected conduct during her visit with Mr. Fitch, the facility administrator reported:
so
Mr. Calder,
ck
Up until today, Mrs. Fitch’s visits have gone well. Today was definitely a hiccup
Ja
in the road. Mrs. Fitch required multiple times of redirection from the topics she
attempted to discuss with Mr. Fitch today.
These topics included cost of his care at the facility and disagreements between
the parties represented in regards to her visits, him being home, and “the girls
not liking her”. Mrs. Fitch was not pleased and was not easily redirected today
during her 30 minute visit. After exit from the building, she voiced complaint
and concern of the nature of the visits, dislike of Mr. Fitch’s daughters, and the
lack of compassion she felt I displayed because of my redirection of her. She
displayed anger and aggravation from the time she walked into the door until
the time she left.
8
I explained to Mrs. Fitch that if the behavior exhibited today occurred again, that
visits would be interrupted or possibly not take place.
Any help that you may give to assist in these visits continuing to go smoothly
would be much appreciated.
Thank you,
Lacey
Lacey J. Vowell, RN, NHA

Administrator
Winston Medical Center Senior Care Services
om
17560 East Main Street
P.O. Box 967
.c
Louisville, MS 39339
ya
Email from Vowell to Calder (June 21, 2021) (Ex. “C” to this Response).
la
22. While such conduct from Aleita might have surprised Ms. Vowell and those at
ba
the Winston County facility, the medical staff at Baptist Hospital in Oxford twice compelled
am
Aleita to leave the facility due to her disruptive conduct, and the attending physician expressed
nj
concern with leaving Aleita alone with Mr. Fitch. Aleita was generally combative and abusive
so
toward medical staff. See Affidavit of Lisa Fitch Wavro (Ex. “L” to this Response), and Excerpts
ck
from BMH-NM Records (Ex. “M” to this Response) (under seal).

Ja
23. Lynn and Lisa are concerned about the welfare and medical condition of their
father. Aleita has demonstrated over a long period of time that she either lacks the ability or
desire to care for Mr. Fitch and considers her personal whims of greater import than the care
and comfort of Mr. Fitch. She cannot comply with this Court’s instructions.
9
24. Lynn has the legal authority to control access to Mr. Fitch and his medical
information. Aleita has flaunted her disregard for this Court’s directions. This Court should
revoke Aleita’s rights under the Temporary Order on Visitation Issues.
III. As Mr. Fitch’s treating physician, Dr. Ard needs access to all information which
might inform his medical assessment and recommended treatment of Mr.
Fitch. This Court should permit Dr. Ard to access the confidential information.
25. Dr. Michael Ard serves as Mr. Fitch’s treating physician in Winston County. He
assesses Mr. Fitch’s medical condition and makes recommendations about his ongoing
om
treatment and care. His assessments and recommendations include decisions concerning those
.c
persons from outside the facility who visit with Mr. Fitch, beyond Lynn and Lisa.
ya
26. In making his decisions, Dr. Ard would likely want to consider information
la
concerning abuse and neglect of Mr. Fitch by a person seeking access to him. Whether that
ba
information would lead to a particular result

am
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioners Lynn Fitch and Lisa Wavro request
nj
that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. 18],
so
terminate the Temporary Order on Visitation Issues [Doc. 17], and permit Dr. Ard to have
ck
access to the confidential information concerning abuse and neglect of Mr. Fitch. Petitioners
Ja
request any other relief appropriate under the circumstances.
THIS, the 14th day of July 2021.
LYNN FITCH and LISA FITCH WAVRO
/s/ J. Cal Mayo, Jr.

Attorneys for Lynn Fitch and Lisa Fitch Wavro
10
Of Counsel:
Mayo Mallette PLLC

Telephone: (662) 236-0055
Facsimile: (662) 236-0035
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
11
I, J. Cal Mayo, Jr., one of the attorneys for Lynn Fitch and Lisa Fitch Wavro, do certify that
I have electronically filed this document with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which
sent notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
THIS, the 14th day of July 2021.

J. CAL MAYO, JR.
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
12


OF WILLIAM O. FITCH
om
MOTION TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF
.c
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ALIETA FITCH
AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
ya
la
ba
counsel, and asks this Court to limit the scope of cross examination of Plaintiff Aleita Fitch at the
upcoming preliminary hearing(s) and at a final hearing on the merits. The Plaintiff also moves
am
for a protective order. In support of this Motion, the Plaintiff states as follows:
nj
INTRODUCTION
so
1. At issue in these consolidated cases is the ability of Lynn Fitch and Lisa Wavro
ck
Fitch (“the Fitch Sisters”) to make health care decisions concerning William “Bill” Fitch’s
Ja
medical treatment, the Plaintiff’s visitation with Bill Fitch at the Winston County Nursing Home,
the ability of Plaintiff to communicate with Bill Fitch’s treating physician, Dr. Ard, and whether
or not a conservator should be appointed to handle Bill Fitch’s financial affairs.
2. As this Court knows, the Plaintiff is also the subject of an Adult Protective
Services (“APS”) report.

3. This report raises the possibility that the Plaintiff, Bill Fitch’s wife, could face
criminal charges from the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. Miss. Code Ann. §43-47-7 (8).
The Defendant, Lynn Fitch, is the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi. She has made
numerous derogatory comments to the Plaintiff calling her a “gold digger” and a “b***h.” These
comments exhibit her hatred for the Plaintiff. She will clearly seek to prosecute the Plaintiff if
she has the opportunity based on the APS report.
4. However, the APS report has no relevance to the issues before the Court.
5. For example, the Plaintiff is not requesting that she be appointed Bill Fitch’s
om
Guardian. She is not requesting that she be appointed his Conservator. On the contrary, the
.c
Plaintiff is seeking increased, supervised visitation with her husband, that she be allowed to talk
ya
to his treating physician, and that the AHD at issue be revoked. None of these issues are related
la
ba
to the APS report.
REQUEST TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION

am
AT PRELIMINARY HEARING OR TRIAL

nj
6. Relevant testimony is generally admissible at preliminary hearings and trials.

so
MRE 402.
ck
7. The test for whether or not evidence is relevant is found in Mississippi Rule of
Ja
Evidence 401. Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the case.
8. Clearly, the issues raised in the APS report have no relevance to the validity of the
AHD in favor of the Fitch Sisters, whether or not Mr. Bill Fitch needs a Conservator, or whether
or not the Plaintiff should be able to talk with Dr. Ard. Furthermore, the Plaintiff, who is eighty
2
(80) years old, has been traveling to the Winston County Nursing Home every Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday for the last three (3) months to visit her husband. She has not missed one
visit. Obviously, she loves and cares for her husband very much. As such, whether or not those
visits should be increased will be based on what has occurred at the Winston County Nursing
Home over the course of the last several months, as opposed to the issues contained in the APS
report.
9. Even if there were some sort of probative value in the APS report, that probative
value is substantially outweighed by the undue prejudice that would result should the Plaintiff be
om
forced to answer questions at a preliminary hearing or trial concerning this subject.
.c
10. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403 states:
ya
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
la
outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice,
ba
confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
am
11. Forcing the Plaintiff to answer questions about the APS report would be unduly
nj
prejudicial because it implicates her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. As this
so
Court knows, the Plaintiff has the right under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
ck
Constitution not to answer questions related to the allegations in the APS report. In re Knapp,
Ja
536 So. 2d 1330, 1334 (Miss. 1988). Should she be forced to do so, the Defendants will argue
that her failure to answer questions raises an adverse inference. Gibson v. Wright, 870 So. 2d
1250, 1260 (Miss. App. 2004). This would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff because it unfairly
impedes her ability to seek the civil remedies she is entitled to under the law. Basically, the APS
report is the “elephant in the room” looming over this civil proceeding. By limiting the ability of
Defense counsel to inquire into the subject area of the APS report, the Court can avoid the
3
implications of the Fifth Amendment and still fairly resolve the issues that exist in these
consolidated cases.
REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
12. Mississippi Rule of Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “parties may obtain discovery
regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the issues raised by the claims or
defenses of any party.” Miss. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added). The privilege identified in
this Rule applies to the privilege against self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment.
Mississippi State Bar v. Attorney L, 511 So.2d 119, 123 (1987).
om
13. Rule 26(d) provides that “upon motion by a party or by the person from whom
.c
discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court . . . may make any order which justice
ya
requires . . . .” Miss. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Such orders may include, but are not limited to,
la
ba
ordering that “the discovery not be had.” Miss. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1)(A).
14. Pursuant thereto, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a
am
protective order limiting the scope of any potential cross-examination during the Plaintiff’s
nj
deposition to matters not pertaining to the APS report. The Plaintiff also seeks a protective order
so
prohibiting the Defendants from propounding any written discovery concerning the allegations in
ck
the APS report.

Ja
15. In applying the Fifth Amendment privilege to a state civil proceeding, the
Mississippi Supreme Court applied the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ two-part test established
in In re Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1979) for
determining precisely when the privilege can be invoked. Mississippi State Bar v. Attorney L.,
511 So.2d 119, 124 (Miss. 1987); see also Harrell v. Duncan, 593 So.2d 1, 5-6 (Miss. 1991).
Specifically, the Court in Mississippi State Bar held that the privilege is valid if the answers to
4
discovery questions might reveal that the witness was engaged in criminal activity, and second,
that there is even a remote risk that the witness will be prosecuted. Id.
16. Given the existence of the APS report and the fact that Lynn Fitch is the Attorney
General for the State of Mississippi, this two part test is met in the case at bar. Lynn Fitch has
stated many times that she despises the Plaintiff, even before this recent controversy arose. Given
her actions in this case to date, she is certainly capable of using her official position to prosecute
the Plaintiff for the unfounded conclusions drawn in the APS report. Specifically, with the
assistance of her State funded bodyguards, she has barged into the Plaintiff’s home and filmed
om
her without her permission in an effort to intimidate the Plaintiff. She has used her State funded
.c
bodyguards to take firearms from the Plaintiff’s property. Her State funded bodyguards were
ya
with her in Baptist hospital when she demanded that Mr. Bill Fitch be removed from the hospital.
la
ba
Clearly, she will use the power she has as the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi to
carry out her vendetta against the Plaintiff (her step-mother) since she has always disapproved of
am
her father’s marriage to the Plaintiff. Given all of this, the Plaintiff is in grave danger of being
nj
prosecuted and her Fifth Amendment rights should be protected by the Court.
so
CONCLUSION
ck
17. For the above reasons, the Plaintiff asks this Court to limit the scope of cross
Ja
examination of the Plaintiff at any upcoming preliminary hearing(s) or the trial of this case to
matters that do not involve the APS report. The Plaintiff further requests that this Court enter a
protective order, prohibiting Defense counsel for inquiring into issues related to the APS report
whether by deposition or by written discovery. The Plaintiff prays for any other relief she may
be entitled to under the circumstances.
5
8-25-21
s/ S. Ray Hill, III

om
.c
ya
THIS, the 25th day of August, 2021
la
s/ S. Ray Hill, III
ba
S. RAY HILL, III
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
6


V. CAUSE NO.: 21‐cv‐164JB


WILLIAM O. FITCH CAUSE NO.: 21‐cv‐176JB


om
PETITIONERS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY TEMPORARY VISITATION ORDER
AND TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL APS REPORT TO TREATING PHYSICIAN
.c

Petitioners Lynn Fitch and Lisa Wavro request that this Court modify Respondent Aleita
ya
la
Fitch’s visitation rights granted by Temporary Order on Visitation Issues [Doc. 17 in No. 164]
ba
based on the recommendation of his treating physician and because of Aleita’s repeated
am
violations of this Court’s instructions concerning her behavior during her visits with Mr. Fitch.
nj
Lynn and Lisa also request that this Court permit disclosure to Mr. Fitch’s treating physician of
so
the APS Report describing Aleita’s abuse and neglect of Mr. Fitch.
ck
1. William O. Fitch currently undergoes in‐patient care and treatment in the
Ja
Winston County Nursing Home in Louisville, Mississippi, and lacks capacity to make health care
decisions. Dr. Michael Ard serves as his treating physician.
2. On July 31, Dr. Ard noted that Mr. Fitch suffered from moderate dementia which
impacted his ability to make medical and financial decisions. Mr. Fitch informed Dr. Ard that he
did not want a feeding tube. See Medical Note (7‐31‐21) (Ex. “A” to this Motion) (under seal).
3. Three weeks later, Dr. Ard again assessed Mr. Fitch’s situation. See Medical Note
(08‐21‐21) (Ex. “B” to this Motion) (under seal). Dr. Ard opined that Aleita’s visits cause Mr.
Fitch stress and anxiety:
My advise as physician is to recommend limitation of wife’s visitation to
once a week and limit phone calls to once a week as well. In my medical
opinion patient is experiencing too much stress and anxiety during wife’s
interaction with him, whether by phone or physical visit.

[T]he nurse reports he is having frequent anxiety when his wife visits, and
anxiety with her phone calls as well. [H]is wife is discussing business
issues that visibly upsets him, and the nurse reports he has had transient
om
chess pain during an episode of anxiety . . ..

.c
I. This Court should modify the Temporary Order on Visitation Issues.

ya
4. This Court granted Aleita temporary visitation rights in June. See Temporary
la
Order on Visitation Issues (June 10, 2021) [Doc. 17 in No. 164]. To protect Mr. Fitch’s health and
ba
avoid further destabilizing his condition, the Court instructed the parties not to talk “with Mr.
am
Fitch about any issues that would cause him to be upset, or to suffer any emotional distress.
nj
This includes speaking in derogatory or negative terms about the opposing party, or in any way
so
attempting to denigrate the opposing party, or alienate Mr. Fitch from the opposing party.”
ck
Aleita has repeatedly ignored this Court’s instructions, despite the complaints and observations
Ja
from the medical staff.
5. On June 21, 2021, two weeks after receiving this Court’s admonition about
Aleita’s expected conduct during her visit with Mr. Fitch, the facility administrator reported:
Mr. Calder,
Up until today, Mrs. Fitch’s visits have gone well. Today was definitely a hiccup
in the road. Mrs. Fitch required multiple times of redirection from the topics she
attempted to discuss with Mr. Fitch today.

2
These topics included cost of his care at the facility and disagreements between
the parties represented in regards to her visits, him being home, and “the girls
not liking her”. Mrs. Fitch was not pleased and was not easily redirected today
during her 30 minute visit. After exit from the building, she voiced complaint
and concern of the nature of the visits, dislike of Mr. Fitch’s daughters, and the
lack of compassion she felt I displayed because of my redirection of her. She
displayed anger and aggravation from the time she walked into the door until
the time she left.

I explained to Mrs. Fitch that if the behavior exhibited today occurred again, that
visits would be interrupted or possibly not take place.

Any help that you may give to assist in these visits continuing to go smoothly
would be much appreciated.
om

Thank you,
.c
Lacey
ya
la
Administrator
ba

am
P.O. Box 967
nj

so
Email from Vowell to Calder (June 21, 2021) (Ex. “C” to this Motion).

ck
6. While such conduct from Aleita might have surprised Ms. Vowell and those at
Ja
the Winston County facility, the medical staff at Baptist Hospital in Oxford twice compelled
Aleita to leave the facility due to her disruptive conduct, and the attending physician expressed
concern with leaving Aleita alone with Mr. Fitch. Aleita was generally combative and abusive
toward medical staff. See Affidavit of Lisa Fitch Wavro (Ex. “D” to this Motion), and Excerpts
from BMH‐NM Records (Ex. “E” to this Motion) (under seal).
7. The Winston County medical records note the adverse impact of Aleita’s visits
with Mr. Fitch. From July 8: “Lacey reported that the resident had an episode of anxiety and
3
SOB during visit with his wife 7/7/21. Resident was calmed down and had no more symptoms
for rest of shift.” See Departmental Notes (07‐08‐21) (Ex. “F” to this Motion) (under seal).
8. Aleita has not limited her disregard for this Court’s instructions to her visits. Her
written correspondence (see Letters (Ex. “G” to this Motion)) has memorialized her
contumacious conduct:
July 6 – You know I went from March 26, 2021 until May 11, 2021 not
being able to see or talk to you. Then I only got 15 minutes on May 11,
2021. I did not get to see you again until June 11, 2021. I had to hire a
lawyer and file suit to even find out where you were. It has been pure
om
torture.

.c
July 12 – I wish the lady supervising us had been nice. It hurt me very
much how she treated me.
ya
la
July 13 – It hurts so much what has been done to both of us.

ba
July 15 – I wish things were not like they are. I marked over the address
as when my mail comes to your post office box, Jerry Jr. will not give it to
am
me.

nj
July 20 – I would never have believed that all of this would have
happened. We trusted people too much.
so

July 26 – I wish I could be there on your Birthday like we have been in the
ck
past, but they will not let me.

Ja
July 26 – I am suffering for what they have done to us. I wish I had some
say so about your care, but I have nothing.

July 29 – I would have never imagined that we would be in the situation
we are in and no fault of either one of us. I guess we are just two old
fools. It is so sad, and I wish there were caring people around. I wish I had
some say so about you, but I do not. It was taken away. I nearly went
crazy when I did not even know where you were for weeks and weeks.

August 2 – I wish you had not been taken away but I have no control and
. . . say so about you. . . . We are both powerless and I don’t know what
to say. As you have said, pay day will come someday.

4
August 5 – I have tried to be a good wife and take good care of you. I just
wish everyone did not hate me so much.

August 9 – I hope they are giving you my cards, but it does not appear
that they are doing so. It hurts me very much. They have no idea how
much I love you and what you mean to me. I told you wrong as to what I
have had to spend on car repairs. I spent $1459.60 on April 27, $1961.58
on July 26 and $825.71 on August 2nd, for a total of $4246.89. . . . I tried
to take good care of you, but they are saying I did not do so and it hurts.

August 10 – It is not good being away from you. I wish it were not this
way, but I have no control over it.

August 12 – I wish it were not this way, but you know some people are
om
very powerful and they control a lot of people.

.c
August 16 – I wish I had some say so about you, but it was taken away
from me.
ya
la
9. Lynn and Lisa are concerned about the welfare and medical condition of their
ba
father. Dr. Ard has opined that Aleita’s visits cause stress and anxiety for Mr. Fitch. Aleita has
am
demonstrated over a long period of time that she lacks either the ability or the desire to care
nj
for Mr. Fitch and considers her personal whims of greater import than his care and comfort.
so
She cannot comply with this Court’s instructions and routinely engages with him on the very
ck
issues prohibited by this Court.
Ja
10. Based on the advice and recommendation of Dr. Ard, this Court should modify
Aleita’s visitation to one 30‐minute in‐person visit and one 15‐minute telephone call per week.
II. As Mr. Fitch’s treating physician, Dr. Ard needs access to all information which
might inform his medical assessment and recommended treatment of Mr.
Fitch. This Court should permit Dr. Ard to access the APS Report.
11. Since the outset of this matter, information has developed about the neglect and
emotional abuse of Mr. Fitch. This confidential information is subject to limited distribution by
law and by order of this Court. As the treating physician for Mr. Fitch, Dr. Ard should have
5
access to this information as he makes recommendations about the course of treatment for Mr.
Fitch and the amount of access to Mr. Fitch by any person who has previously abused or
neglected Mr. Fitch.
12. Dr. Michael Ard serves as Mr. Fitch’s treating physician in Winston County. He
assesses Mr. Fitch’s medical condition and makes recommendations about his ongoing
treatment and care. His assessments and recommendations include decisions concerning those
persons from outside the facility who visit with Mr. Fitch, beyond Lynn and Lisa.
om
13. Dr. Ard has opined that Aleita causes Mr. Fitch stress and anxiety. Her conduct at
.c
the Winston County facility mirrors the conduct reported in the APS Report. As he makes
ya
recommendations about Aleita’s visitations with Mr. Fitch, Dr. Ard should have access to the
la
Report and the information in the Report.
ba
am
that this Court modify the Temporary Order on Visitation Issues [Doc. 17 in No. 164], and
nj
permit Dr. Ard to have access to the confidential information concerning abuse and neglect of
so
Mr. Fitch in the APS Report. Petitioners request any other appropriate relief.
ck
THIS, the 29th day of August 2021.
Ja



6
Of Counsel:

Mayo Mallette PLLC
Telephone: (662) 236‐0055
Facsimile: (662) 236‐0035
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
7

THIS, the 29th day of August 2021.

J. CAL MAYO, JR.

om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
8
EXHIBIT “C”
June 21, 2021, Email from Vowell to Calder
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
From: Lacey Vowell

To: David Calder
Cc: Ray Hill; Cal Mayo
Subject: RE: William Fitch conservatorship
Date: Monday, June 21, 2021 4:43:48 PM
Mr. Calder,

Up until today, Mrs. Fitch’s visits have gone well. Today was definitely a hiccup in the road. Mrs.
Fitch required multiple times of redirection from the topics she attempted to discuss with Mr. Fitch
today.

These topics included cost of his care at the facility and disagreements between the parties
represented in regards to her visits, him being home, and “the girls not liking her”. Mrs. Fitch was
not pleased and was not easily redirected today during her 30 minute visit. After exit from the
building, she voiced complaint and concern of the nature of the visits, dislike of Mr. Fitch’s
om
daughters, and the lack of compassion she felt I displayed because of my redirection of her. She
displayed anger and aggravation from the time she walked into the door until the time she left.
.c

I explained to Mrs. Fitch that if the behavior exhibited today occurred again, that visits would be
interrupted or possibly not take place.
ya

la
Any help that you may give to assist in these visits continuing to go smoothly would be much
ba
appreciated.

am
Thank you,
Lacey
nj

so

ck
Administrator
Ja

P.O. Box 967

Office: 662-779-5183
Cell: 662-418-5229
Fax: 662-446-1153

From: David Calder [mailto:davidcalder23@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Lacey Vowell
Subject: William Fitch conservatorship

Ms. Vowell,

The COurt signed the Order allowing Ms. Fitch to have
supervised visits on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. I
have attached a copy of the Order. Please contact me if
you have any questions or need any additional
information.

Thank you for your assistance.

om
David
cell (662) 832-1354
.c
David L. Calder
ya
Child Advocacy Clinic
Khayat Law Center la
University of Mississippi School of Law
P.O. Box 111
ba
Oxford, MS 38655-0111
phone (662) 915-7394
am
fax (866) 474-0923

e-mail: davidcalder23@gmail.com
nj
This message is being sent by an Attorney. This message is covered by the Electronic Communication
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2515, it is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
so
named above, and may contain information, which is privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally exempt
from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
ck
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message and
any attachments in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, copying or alteration of this
Ja
message and/or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify
the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail and by telephone at (662) 915-7394, and delete all
copies of the message from your computer. Thank you.
CAUTION : This message originated from outside the organization. Exercise

caution when following links, opening attachments or carrying out instructions.

EXHIBIT “G”
Aleita Fitch written correspondence
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
V. CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-164JB


WILLIAM O. FITCH CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-176
om
NOTICE OF HEARING
.c
TO: All Counsel
ya
Please be advised that a hearing will be held on Petitioners’ (I) Petition for Appointment
la
of Conservator of An Adult, (II) Emergency Motion Concerning IRA Account, and (III) Emergency
ba
Motion to Modify Temporary Visitation Order and to Permit Disclosure of Confidential APS
am
Report to Treating Physician on Thursday, September 9, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. at the Lafayette
nj
County Chancery Courthouse in Oxford, Mississippi, before Honorable Jon M. Barnwell,

so
Chancellor.
ck
THIS, the 1st day of September 2021.

Ja

Attorneys for Petitioners
Of Counsel:
Mayo Mallette PLLC

Telephone: (662) 236-0055
Facsimile: (662) 236-0035
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja
I, J. Cal Mayo, Jr., one of the attorneys for Lynn Fitch and Lisa Fitch Wavro, do certify that I
have electronically filed this document with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which
THIS, the 1st day of September 2021.

J. CAL MAYO, JR.
om
.c
ya
la
ba
am
nj
so
ck
Ja


OF WILLIAM O. FITCH
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY

TEMPORARY VISITATION ORDER AND TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF
CONFIDENTIAL APS REPORT TO TREATING PHYSICIAN
AND
MOTION FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM
COMES NOW Respondent, Aleita M. Sullivan Fitch (“Respondent”), by and through
counsel, and respectfully requests that this Court deny the Petitioners’ (“the Fitch Sisters”)
motion, and that the Court adopt the recommendations of the Guardian Ad Litem, and in support
states as follows:
1. The Fitch Sisters want to severely limit the Respondent’s visitation with her
critically ill husband, Bill Fitch. Respondent is the step-mother of the Fitch Sisters.
2. The Respondent denies the allegations contained in the motion and requests that
this Court grant her increased visitation with Bill Fitch as outlined in her Third Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and for Other Relief. (Case No. 47CH1:21-cv-00164-JB
Document #: 18 Filed: 07/01/2021).
3. Furthermore, at 1:53 a.m. this morning, the court appointed Guardian Ad Litem,
Mr. David Calder, served on the parties and the Court his “Sixth Report of the Guardian Ad
Litem.” The Respondent respectfully asks that this Court adopt the recommendations of Mr.
Calder as follows:
A.) Appoint a neutral Conservator to handle Bill Fitch’s financial affairs. The
Respondent has nominated Stephanie Smith CPA, CFF of the Grantham, Poole firm in
Ridgeland, Mississippi to serve as Conservator. (Case No. 47CH1:21-cv-00176-JB Document #:
12 Filed: 04/23/2021). Her CV and Fee Schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Ms. Smith’s
credentials are impeccable and her experience in these types of matters is vast. She is a
disinterested, neutral professional with more than enough experience to handle the financial
matters of Mr. Bill Fitch.
B.) Appoint a neutral Guardian of the Person of Mr. Bill Fitch. The Respondent
has nominated Lafayette County Chancery Clerk Sherry Wall to serve as the Guardian of the
Person of Mr. Bill Fitch. (Case No. 47CH1:21-cv-00176-JB Document #: 52 Filed: 09/07/2021).
Ms. Wall has served as Chancery Clerk for many years and has performed the duties of a
Guardian on numerous occasions. She clearly has the experience necessary to be the Guardian of
the Person of Mr. Bill Fitch. She has no connection to any of the parties in this case and is
entirely neutral.
C.) Revoke the Advance Health Care Directive in favor of Lynn Fitch. The
Respondent has also asked for this relief in previous filings with the Court, most recently via her
Third Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Other Relief. (Case No. 47CH1:21-cv-
00164-JB Document #: 18 Filed: 07/01/2021).
D.) Allow the Respondent Free Visitation with Mr. Bill Fitch after the
appointment of a Guardian of the Person. The Respondent has also asked for this relief. Id.
2
E.) Allow the Respondent Daily Visits and Daily Phone Calls or Video Chats
with Mr. Bill Fitch.
F.) Allow the Respondent to Communicate with Dr. Ard and any other medical
provider about Mr. Bill Fitch’s medical condition and treatment.
G.) Allow the Respondent to Continue to Send Cards and Letters to Mr. Bill
Fitch.
H.) Find that the APS report is without merit. Based on this recommendation, the
Respondent respectfully requests that this Court grant the Respondent’s Motion to Limit the
Scope of Cross-Examination of Respondent and for Protective Order. (Case No. 47CH1:21-cv-
00164-JB Document #: 45 Filed: 08/25/2021).
I.) Deny the Fitch Sisters’ Request to Disclose APS Report to Dr. Ard. Dr. Ard
has apparently told Mr. Calder that he has no desire to see the APS report. For that reason, as
well as the fact that the APS report is without merit, there is no logical basis for the report to be
given to Dr. Ard. This is just another example of Lynn Fitch seeking to use her connection with
the Department of Human Services and its Adult Protective Services Division to facilitate an
advantage for herself in a civil proceeding
4. The Fitch Sisters’ motion should also be denied because they have unclean hands.
Mississippi law is clear that a party cannot seek modification of a visitation order when her
hands are unclean. The doctrine of unclean hands provides that 'he who comes into equity must
come with clean hands.'" Pruitt v. Payne, 14 So. 3d 806, 811 (Miss. App. 2009) (citing In re
Estate of Richardson v. Cornes, 903 So. 2d 51, 55 (P15) (Miss. 2005).
5. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that “the meaning of this maxim is to
declare that no person as a complaining party can have the aid of a court of equity when his
3
conduct with respect to the transaction in question has been characterized by willful inequity.”
Id. (quoting O'Neill v. O'Neill, 551 So. 2d 228, 233 (Miss. 1989)).
6. As the Court stated in Pruitt, "whenever a party seeks to employ the judicial
machinery in order to obtain some remedy and that party has violated good faith or some other
equitable principle, 'the doors of the court will be shut against him' and 'the court will refuse to
interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy.'" Id. (citing R.K.
v. J.K., 946 So. 2d 764, 774 (Miss. 2007).
7. Upon information and belief, the Fitch Sisters have violated the restrictions on
their visitation by visiting with Bill Fitch during the weekends. Upon information and belief they
have also violated the Court’s Visitation Order (Case No. 47 CH1:21-cv-00164-JB Doc. #17,
Filed 6/10/2021) by disparaging the Respondent.
8. Furthermore, the Fitch Sisters have violated the Court’s Order by intercepting
some sixty (60 pages) of correspondence from the Respondent to her husband and facilitating the
transfer of said correspondence to their attorneys. (See Ex. G to the Fitch Sisters’ present
motion). These attorneys then cherry-picked several sentences from these letters and quoted
them in their motion without context in an effort to convince this Court that the Respondent has
done something contumacious. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, it is the
Fitch Sisters who apparently have no respect for the law. Not allowing a dying man to read
letters from his beloved wife is unconscionable.
9. The Respondent requests any other relief she may be entitled to under the
premises.
9-8-21
4
s/ S. Ray Hill, III

Attorney for Respondent
THIS, the 8th day of September, 2021
s/ S. Ray Hill, III

S. RAY HILL, III
5


V. CAUSE NO.: 21‐cv‐164JB


WILLIAM O. FITCH CAUSE NO.: 21‐cv‐176


RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ALEITA FITCH’S MOTION TO LIMIT SCOPE OF CROSS
EXAMINAITON AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Petitioners, Lynn Fitch, and Lisa Fitch Wavro, request that this Court deny Aleita Fitch’s
Motion to Limit the Scope of Cross Examination and for Protective Order.
In support, Petitioners state:
1. This consolidated matter relates to the Conservatorship of W.O. “Bill” Fitch and
Aleita Fitch’s attempt to subvert clear Mississippi law governing the advanced healthcare
directive (the “AHD”) Bill Fitch executed in favor of his daughters, Lynn Fitch and Lisa Fitch
Wavro.
2. Using the AHD, Lynn Fitch began making health care decisions for Bill Fitch in
March 2021. Those decisions have included relocating Bill Fitch from Oxford to a nursing home
in Winston County and the decision to restrict the visitation of his current wife, Aleita Fitch.
3. In response to the actions of Lynn Fitch, Aleita Fitch filed a Complaint and a
succession of Motions for Temporary Restraining Order all aimed at either terminating the AHD
so that Aleita could have unfettered access to her husband or at increasing the temporary
supervised visitation that Aleita received by the Court in its order of June 6, 2021.
4. At issue in the present motion is the Adult Protective Services Report (the “APS
Report”) and the allegations of abuse it contains. Aleita Fitch has raised her 5th Amendment
right against self‐incrimination and requests that the Court limit the scope of cross examination
at trial and grant a protective order for discovery all so that Aleita Fitch can avoid incriminating
herself. In essence, Aleita is requesting blanket 5th Amendment protection from any questions
related to abuse of Mr. Fitch.
5. Through her own actions Aleita Fitch has put at issue her visitation with Mr.
Fitch. Now she requests that the Court protect her from answering any questions related to
whether she abused her husband. The 5th Amendment protections cannot be used as both a
sword and a shield; accordingly, this Court should deny Aleita Fitch’s motion.
6. As an initial matter, Petitioners do not contest that Aleita has the right to raise
her 5th amendment privilege. Indeed, citizens of Mississippi enjoy a privilege against self‐
incrimination through both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article
3, § 26 of the Mississippi Constitution. In re Knapp, 536 So. 2d 1330, 1334 (Miss. 1988). This
privilege against self‐incrimination is available to witnesses in criminal as well as civil
proceedings. Id.
7. However, unlike a criminal case there is no blanket right to remain silent in a civil
case. Id., at 1335. The claim of privilege in a civil case is to be determined by the court on a
question‐by‐question basis. Harrell v. Duncan, 593 So. 2d 1, 16‐17 (Miss. 1991) (citing Morgan
v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 222 So. 2d 820, 828 (Miss. 1969)). When a witness
2

raises her Fifth Amendment privilege, she is “required to give the court sufficient information
for the court to determine, in fact, that answering the question would tend to incriminate the
witness." Harrell, 593 So. 2d 16 (quoting Hinds County Board of Supervisors v. Common Cause,
551 So. 2d 107, 112 (Miss. 1989)). The privilege against self‐incrimination may be waived if the
witness takes the stand and testifies on direct examination as to the merits of the case. Id.
Then, on cross examination, she cannot attempt to avoid further questions on the merits of the
case by use of the privilege. Id. Finally, if a witness in a civil case does refuse to testify, an
adverse inference can be drawn against them. Morgan, 222 So. 2d at 828. (“The permissible
drawing by the factfinder of an inference of inability truthfully to deny a civil claim from a
defendant's failure to testify as to relevant facts within his personal knowledge which might
refute the evidence adduced against him, is a logical, traditional and valuable tool in the
process of fair adjudication.”) (internal citations omitted).
8. In the present case, Aleita alleges that she faces the possibility of criminal
charges under Miss. Code Ann. § 43‐47‐7. Moreover, although her allegation is based partially
on Lynn fitch’s role as Attorney General (“AG”) and the supervision of cases associated with
abuse of adults, Lynn Fitch did not cause the APS Report to be filed and nothing beyond pure
speculation suggests she has any personal involvement in any decision related to the APS
Report. Whether or not Aleita Fitch is prosecuted for abusing Bill Fitch will be decided without
the involvement of Lynn Fitch. Notwithstanding Lynn Fitch’s lack of involvement, the
allegations of abuse against Aleita are serious and relevant to the determination of whether
Aleita should be entitled to unfettered access, supervised visitation, or no visitation with Bill
3

Fitch. Indeed, what could be more relevant to visitation than whether the person seeking
visitation is an abusing the person they are seeking to visit.
9. Aleita’s arguments that the matters contained in the APS Report are irrelevant
and that allowing her to be cross examined on those matters is unduly prejudicial are spurious
and defy logic.
10. To be clear the issues raised in the APS Report relate to allegations of abuse by
Aleita against her husband Bill Fitch. Those allegations of abuse, the observations made by
Lynn Fitch, and the precipitous decline in the health of Bill Fitch while he was in Aleita’s care
were factors in Lynn Fitch’s decision to move her father to Winston County and curtail any
contact by Aleita. Aleita’s Complaint and successive Motions for Temporary Relief seek to
overturn the actions of Lynn Fitch. Whether or not Aleita Fitch abused her husband is a central
issue in this action. For Aleita Fitch to argue otherwise simply defies logic.
11. Aleita’s argument that allowing her to be cross‐examined on the APS Report
would be unduly prejudicial is spurious and would violate Petitioners’ 6th Amendment right of
confrontation. Mississippi Courts have consistently held that in a civil case the 5th amendment
privilege applies to allow a witness to raise the privilege on a question‐by‐question basis.
Harrell, 593 So. 2d, at 16‐17. The analysis by Aleita of whether or not to testify in this case is
simply a tactical decision. In re Knapp, 536 So. 2d 1336 n. 12 (noting that the dilemma of
whether to testify or raise the privilege is simply a tactical decision). On one hand, she can raise
the 5th Amendment privilege and protect herself against potential self‐incrimination; on the
other hand, she can testify and face questions on cross‐examination regarding her abuse of Bill
Fitch. Regardless, the decision is hers to make. Again, her argument is – she should be allowed
4

to testify as to why she should be granted unfettered access to her husband and at the same be
protected from any questions regarding her abuse of her husband. The only undue prejudice
associated with that argument is the undue prejudice faced by Petitioners if such reversible
error was allowed by this Court. Wallace v. Jones, 572 So. 2d 371, 374 (Miss 1990) (“Cross‐
examination is a matter of right. It is secured by the confrontation clause of the Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, made enforceable against the states via
the Fourteenth Amendment. The right is secured independently by the confrontation clause of
this state's constitution, Miss. Const., Art. 3, § 26 (1890), though it is more commonly thought
of as a function of our law of evidence. As such its scope has been considered wide, coextensive
with the limits of relevancy measured by the issue.”) (internal citations omitted).
12. For the same reasons, Aleita’s request for a protective order preventing
Petitioners from seeking discovery related to her abuse of Bill is also due to be denied. Aleita is
free to raise her 5th amendment rights related to any potential discovery, but she must do so
with the same tactical decision in mind. Mississippi law is clear, either she raises the 5th
amendment privilege, or she answers the discovery. In re Knapp, 536 So. 2d, at 1336 n. 12. The
choice is hers.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioners Lynn Fitch and Lisa Fitch Wavro,
request this Court to deny Aleita Fitch’s Motion to Limit Cross‐Examination and for a Protective
Order and to grant any other appropriate relief.

5

THIS, the 8th day of September 2021.


/s/ John D. Mayo.
Of Counsel:

Mayo Mallette PLLC
Telephone: (662) 236‐0055
Facsimile: (662) 236‐0035
6


I, John D. Mayo, one of the attorneys for Lynn Fitch and Lisa Fitch Wavro, do certify that I
have electronically filed this document with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which
/s/ John D. Mayo
JOHN D. MAYO

7

V. CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-164


WILLIAM O. FITCH CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-176
PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO TERMINTATE GUARDIAN AD LITEM

AND OBJECTION TO GUARDIAN AD LITEM’S SIXTH REPORT
Petitioners Lynn Fitch and Lisa Wavro request that this Court terminate David Calder as
the Guardian Ad Litem and reject the recommendations in his Sixth Report. The GAL has vastly
exceeded the scope of authority granted under the Order of Appointment, has ignored the
recommendations of Mr. Fitch’s treating physician concerning visitation by Aleita Fitch, and has
failed to objectively fulfill his duties to gather and report information to the Court.
1. This Court appointed David Calder as Guardian Ad Litem in April 2021. See Order
Appointing Guardian Ad Litem (April 23, 2021) (Ex. “A” to this Motion). That Order instructed
the GAL to (i) “as soon as possible provide a preliminary report on the health and welfare of Mr.
Fitch, including current and recent medical history” and “include a recommendation on family
visitation related to Mr. Fitch and any restrictions on visitation, if necessary”, and (ii) “provide a
report on the status of the financial condition of Fitch Farms, Inc., Fitch Farms Enterprises, Inc.,
and Mr. Fitch’s personal financial condition within two (2) weeks of the date of this Order.”
2. The GAL has never provided any report on Mr. Fitch’s financial condition. He has
never spoken with Jerry Fitch, the person assigned responsibility for maintaining Mr. Fitch’s
day-to-day financial affairs in the Order Appointing GAL.
3. At 1:52 a.m. on September 8, 2021, the GAL delivered his 41-page Sixth Report.
See Sixth Report (Ex. “B” to this Motion) (under seal). The Report covers topics far afield from
the scope of the Order Appointing GAL. The Report also ignores the advice of the treating
physician and makes a recommendation totally opposite the treating physician’s
recommendation.
4. The GAL Report initially addresses issues concerning Mr. Fitch’s medical
condition and visitation by Aleita. The GAL notes review of Dr. Ard’s medical notes and
interviews with Dr. Michael Ard (the treating physician), Lacey Vowell (Winston Senior Care
facility administrator) Aleita, and her daughter (Sonya McElroy). Without explanation, the GAL
did not contact Lynn Fitch, Lisa Wavro, or Jerry Fitch to gather their observations about their
numerous visits with their father. In fact, the GAL has not conversed with Lynn or Lisa since
May, and, again, he has never contacted Jerry Fitch. The GAL has not objectively gathered
information, but he has instead subjectively gathered information from one side of this dispute.
5. The GAL spends over nine pages of his Report addressing an Adult Protective
Services Report and his views of the law concerning use of that report. The Order Appointing
GAL did not include this assignment. Second, these legal opinions exceed the scope of the role
of a guardian ad litem under the law. See Miss. Code Ann. § 93-20-115 (“The court shall state
the duties of the guardian ad litem and the reasons for the appointment.”). The role of a
guardian ad litem is “to inform the court about the ward, to protect the interests of the ward,
2
and to make recommendations to the court in the best interests of the ward.” See Miss. Code
Ann. § 93-20-102(h). The APS Report relates to Aleita and her misconduct. The GAL has no
authority to make a recommendation as to the weight that the Court should give the APS
Report. The GAL simply has no role related to use of the Report or the legal analysis concerning
applicable statutes and administrative regulations.
6. The GAL spends four pages giving his legal opinion about the appointment of a
guardian and a conservator. Again, the Order Appointing GAL did not request nor authorize any
such analysis. This exercise exceeds the scope of the GAL’s duties.
7. The GAL finishes his Report with a series of recommendations over four pages:
• Appoint a Conservator – Lynn and Lisa do not disagree that a conservator is

warranted. They filed their Petition with supporting affidavits for that reason.
However, the GAL factual findings are not evidence, and his legal conclusions are
irrelevant. He is not a special master under Miss. R. Civ. Pr. 53(a). This
recommendation exceeds the scope of his appointment.
• Appoint a Guardian – As with the recommendation for a conservator, the GAL has
exceeded the scope of his appointment and of his role. Mr. Fitch twice selected Lynn
as his medical agent under separate Advanced Healthcare Directives (Exs. “C” and
“D” to this Motion). Appointment of a guardian will only add unnecessary expense
to Mr. Fitch. The fact that Aleita disagrees with Lynn’s decisions does not warrant
appointment of a guardian.
• Revocate the Advanced Health Care Directive – Once more, the GAL has far
exceeded his appointment and recommended a result solely in the interest of Aleita.
The GAL questions the validity of the 2020 AHD without ever contacting Lynn and
Lisa to discuss the signing of the document, without mentioning the 2010 AHD which
gave the same authority to Lynn, and without contacting the other witnesses (both
members of the Mississippi Bar) who attested that Mr. Fitch was of sound mind and
under no duress, fraud, or undue influence when he signed the 2020 AHD.
Mississippi law presumes Mr. Fitch had the capacity to give an advance healthcare
directive naming Lynn as his agent. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-223. Mississippi law also
dictates that Mr. Fitch can revoke the designation of Lynn as his agent only by a
signed writing or by personally informing his supervising health care provider. Miss.
Code Ann. § 41-41-207(1). The GAL does not find that Mr. Fitch (i) lacked capacity to
name Lynn as his agent under the 2020 Directive, (ii) revoked the designation of
3
Lynn as his agent in signed writing, or (iii) revoked the designation by

communicating personally to his supervising health care provider. The 2020 AHD
remains valid. Even if it is invalid for some unknown reason, the 2010 AHD remains
in full force and effect with the same result.
• Visitation by Aleita – Mr. Fitch’s treating physician has advised that Aleita should
have no more than one 30-minute visit a week in person and one 15-minute phone
call. He bases this recommendation on his conclusion that Aleita is causing Mr. Fitch
stress and anxiety which adversely impacts his health. Ignoring this advice, the GAL
inexplicably concludes that Aleita should be “freely allowed” to see her husband. He
dismissed the reports from the independent medical professionals about her
conduct and accepts whole cloth the explanation provided by Aleita, without ever
even contacting Lynn or Lisa to gather their observations about their father. He then
speculates as to the cause of Mr. Fitch’s stress (he wants to leave the facility)
without any basis for this conclusion. Only Aleita has been removed from the Baptist
medical facility, only Aleita has made a spectacle and caused disturbances at the
nursing home and the hospital in Winston County, and only Aleita has violated the
restrictions placed on her by the Court concerning visitation. Even if he was ever
objective, the GAL has now chosen sides.
• Access to Mr. Fitch and his Medical Information - Absent express limitation, a health
care directive places the agent in the shoes of the patient as relates to the patient’s
health care. “Unless otherwise specified in an advance health-care directive, a
person then authorized to make healthcare decisions for a patient has the same
rights as the patient to request, receive, examine, copy and consent to the
disclosure of medical or any other health-care information.” Miss. Code Ann. § 41-
41-217. Absent his incapacity, Mr. Fitch would have the ability to control access to
his person and access to information about his health care, including his physicians
and his medical records. Through the health care directive, that power and authority
now rest with Lynn. As a result, Lynn can determine (consistent with the policies of
the medical care facility) who may visit with her father, when those visits may occur,
the conditions for those visits, and the information about her father which can be
shared and to whom. Aleita has no legal right to access to Mr. Fitch or to
information about his health condition.
that this Court terminate the Order of Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem and reject the
recommendations made by the GAL. Petitioners request any other appropriate relief.
4

Of Counsel:
Mayo Mallette PLLC

Telephone: (662) 236-0055
Facsimile: (662) 236-0035
5

J. CAL MAYO, JR.

Fitch File 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fitch File 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 47CH1:21-cv-00164-JB Document #: 2 Filed: 04/01/2021 Page 1 of 19

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF MARSHALL COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

ALEITA M. SULLIVAN FITCH PLAINTIFF

V. CAUSE NO. 21-CV-164-L

W.O. “BILL” FITCH and

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Fitch is currently located.

the setting of the hearing on the Temporary Restraining Order.

5. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff requests that this

s/ S. Ray Hill, III

S. RAY HILL, III, MSB #100088

Attorney for Plaintiff

THIS, the 8th day of April, 2021

s/ S. Ray Hill, III

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF MARSHALL COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

ALEITA M. SULLIVAN FITCH PLAINTIFF

V. CAUSE NO. 21-CV-164-L

W.O. “BILL” FITCH and

SECOND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

that she has no authority to make.

4. Specifically, the Defendant is making business decisions related to the operation

Fitch Farms hunting lodge.

instructed her bodyguards to take from an employee one of Bill’s guns.

cattle are located.

7. The Defendant has repeatedly engaged in a course of intimidating conduct toward

his permission and without any authority.

Defendant on September 14, 2020.

run his financial affairs.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff requests that this Court

THIS, the 14th day of April, 2021

THIS, the 14th day of April, 2021

s/ S. Ray Hill, III

IN THE CHANCERY COURT

ALEITA M. SULLIVAN FITCH PETITIONER

V. CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-00164

W.O. “BILL” FITCH and

RESPONDENT LYNN FITCH’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

“sign” a revocation of their pre-nuptial agreement on January 12, 2021.

abuse of Bill Fitch.

1. Aleita Fitch has no right to injunctive relief from Lynn Fitch.

her unauthorized actions.”

made it clear that Aletia’s request for relief is an extraordinary one:

Nothing is better settled in this state, and nothing is or ought to be better

(Miss. 1934)) (emphasis added).

a. There is no likelihood of success on the merits, much less a “substantial” likelihood.

information.” Id. (emphasis added).

health care information, including his location.

them to seek appointment of a conservator to prevent Aleita’s continued squandering and

unpaid bills along with the key to Bill’s P.O. Box.

3. Aleita’s second motion is procedurally barred.

authorized Lynn, as her father’s attorney-in-fact, to withhold from Aleita.

motions for temporary relief.

that may be available to her now or as may be disclosed in discovery.

Attorneys for Lynn Fitch

Mayo Mallette PLLC

2094 Old Taylor Road, Suite 200

Oxford, Mississippi 38655

this document on the following counsel:

S. Ray Hill III

IN THE CHANCERY COURT

ALEITA M. SULLIVAN FITCH PETITIONER

v. CAUSE NO.: 21-cv-00164

W.O. "BILL" FITCH and