Whether Charlie had a right to appeal through his next friend and the sanctions order was contrary to the evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question No. 1: Whether the Court of Appeals’ Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, dated March 31, 2021, dismissing the appeal by Charlie, by and through Billy Duncan, as next friend, due to lack of jurisdiction, and affirming the trial court’s May 29, 2019 Second Amended Order Granting Motion for Sanctions were entered in error because Charlie had, or should have had, a right appeal by and through his next friend, and the sanctions order was so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Question No. 2: Whether the Second Amended Order Granting Motion for Sanctions finding that Petitioners should be required to pay $226,974, plus $80,000 in the event of unsuccessful appeals, as pre-trial sanctions was entered in error and an abuse of discretion because it effectively deprived Petitioners including Charlie of a final hearing on the merits, notwithstanding their jury demand. Question No. 3: Whether the trial court’s order that Phil should be required to pay $222,974 punitive and/or compensatory sanctions, plus $80,000 in the event of unsuccessful appeals, jointly and severally with his clients Laura and Brittany, as a sanction for his litigation efforts was entered in error and an abuse of discretion because Phil’s zealous advocacy was not vexatious, the trial court’s findings were so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong, and Petitioners’ attorney’s actions were protected by attorney immunity.