Smith v. Little


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-00092-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-22-2003
Opinion Author: King, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contempt - Attorney’s fees
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-19-2001
Appealed from: Rankin County Chancery Court
Judge: John Grant
Disposition: APPELLANT FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR APPELLEE.
Case Number: 47110

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: In the Matter of the Dissolution of the Marriage of Angela Beth Smith and Randall Sawyer Smith: Randall Sawyer Smith




JOHN W. CHRISTOPHER



 

Appellee: Angela Beth (Smith) Little JAMES A. BOBO C. JASON WOMACK  

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 - Attorney’s fees

Summary of the Facts: After Randall Smith and Angela Smith (Little) were granted a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences, Angela filed a motion for contempt alleging that Randall failed to comply with certain provisions of the property settlement agreement. The court found Randall to be in contempt, and Randall appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Contempt Randall argues that the court erred in finding him in contempt, because his obligation to make payments of periodic alimony terminated upon Angela’s remarriage. Randall presented this same issue on direct appeal, and found no error in the chancellor's determination that the provision related to the Jaguar automobile represented a division of marital property, rather than periodic alimony. In addition, while Randall claims that his attorney advised him that he should not send the monthly car allowance to Angela, a contemnor’s claim that he was acting upon the advice of counsel in violation of a solemn decree of the court is no defense to a proceeding for contempt. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Randall argues that Angela did not offer sufficient evidence to justify an award of attorney's fees. A contemnee may recover attorney fees related to pursuing actions where a contemnor has wilfully violated a lawful order of the court. Therefore, the court did not err in awarding Angela reasonable attorney's fees.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court