Moody v. Moody
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01416-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01416-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 07-13-2004 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-16-2003 Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr. Case Number: 2002-0034-GN-D |
|
| Note: | Link Inactive | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Thomas Alfred Moody |
|||
| Appellee: | Laura Marie Shein Moody |
|
||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contempt |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. The chancery court denied Thomas Moody's motion for entry of supplemental judgment of divorce and at the same time found Mr. Moody to be in contempt of court for failing to follow the prior orders of the court. Mr. Moody filed a notice of appeal which stated that he was appealing the court’s ruling denying his Motion for Entry of Supplemental Judgement of Divorce. After the notice of appeal was filed, Laura Moody filed a Motion to Docket and Dismiss Appeal and Motion for Sanctions. The supreme court granted the motion to the extent that the court found that the notice of appeal of the Final Judgment of Divorce was not timely filed and granted that part of the appellee’s motion. The court did not grant the part of the motion which sought to dismiss the appeal of the Final Judgment of Contempt. The appellant in his brief addressed not only the judgment of contempt but also issues concerning the judgment of divorce which had been eliminated from the appeal. A motion to strike those issues already dismissed by the supreme court was passed for consideration along with the merits of the appeal by the supreme court. The motion should have been granted to the extent that the part of the brief addressing issues previously dismissed should have been struck from the brief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The only issue remaining is that part of the judgment that found Mr. Moody in contempt of court. Mr. Moody was obligated to follow a court order until amended or reversed. He did not when he failed to make the required payments. Therefore, the chancellor was correct to find contempt. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
