McKnight v. Jenkins
| Docket Number: | 2011-CT-00206-SCT Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00206-COA ; 2011-CA-00206-COA ; 2011-CT-00206-SCT ; 2011-CT-00206-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-14-2013 Opinion Author: Lamar, J. Holding: Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part; Chancery court affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded. |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-13-2012 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Medical expenses - Court-appearance fee Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Kitchens, Chandler, Pierce, King and Coleman, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-22-2008 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: FOUND MOTHER IN CONTEMPT AND ORDERED HER TO PAY $19,956.67 IN ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND $4,012.50 IN GUARDIAN AD LITEM FEES AND DENIED MOTHER’S MOTION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT Case Number: 03-06-0968 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s decision to deny Holly’s petition for custody and child- support modification and found that it was within his discretion to require her to pay the guardian ad litem’s fees. However, the Supreme Court found that the chancellor erred when he held Holly in contempt for her failure to pay Dr. Rosenberg’s court-appearance fee and ordered her to pay a $3,700 judgment ($1,200 for the fee and $2,500 for Walter’s attorney’s fees); therefore, it vacated the contempt judgment against Holly, and reversed the award in favor of Walter and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of an order reducing the amount awarded to Walter by $3,700. The remainder of the chancery court’s judgment was affirmed. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO75606.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Holly Kathleen Jenkins McKnight |
JERRY WESLEY HISAW
JAMES R. FRANKS, JR.
WILLIAM R. WHEELER, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Walter Calvin Jenkins | JOY W. GRAVES MALENDA HARRIS MEACHAM | ||
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 - Medical expenses - Court-appearance fee |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Holly McKnight and Walter Jenkins were divorced, they had joint legal custody of their child, and Holly had physical custody. Walter later filed a Petition for Contempt, Modification of Custody and Temporary Visitation, and the court give legal and physical custody to Walter and visitation to Holly. Two months later, Walter filed another petition requesting that Holly’s visitation be limited and supervised. The parties entered into an agreement which indefinitely suspended Holly’s visitation. A year later, Holly filed a motion for physical and legal custody of the child. The chancellor denied Holly’s motion and held her in contempt. She was ordered to pay Walter more than $21,000 and the guardian ad litem almost $5,000. Holly appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Holly was held in contempt for violating an order which required her to pay half of the child’s medical expenses. However, Walter did not file a motion for contempt on those grounds. Although he had moved to amend his motion to allege that Holly had failed to pay her share of the child’s medical expenses, the motion was never amended. Although the chancellor noted that Walter had not pled the claim for medical expenses in his contempt motion and would therefore not be able to recover for that claim, the chancellor took the opposite action by holding Holly in contempt for that claim. Thus, the contempt entered against Holly is vacated. In addition, Holly was not in contempt of the order. The fee in question was a court-appearance fee by the child’s doctor which Holly believed to be a litigation expense, not a medical expense. Thus, her violation was not willful or deliberate. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
