In re Estate of Patton v. Patton
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01637-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01637-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-08-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wills & estates - Contempt - Unclean hands - De minimis violations Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ESTATES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-24-2006 Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT Case Number: 2005-0810 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM H. PATTON, JR., DECEASED: STACY FISHER |
ROBIN L. ROBERTS |
||
| Appellee: | MYRTIS DEAN PATTON, EXECUTRIX | JOHN L. JEFFRIES |
|
|
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: | Wills & estates - Contempt - Unclean hands - De minimis violations |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stacy Fisher was found to be in contempt for violating a court order. Following a hearing on sanctions, the court ordered Fisher to pay $3,045.75 in attorney’s fees to Myrtis Patton. Fisher appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Contempt Fisher argues that the chancellor found her not to be in civil contempt but in constructive criminal contempt and that because she was found to be in criminal contempt she was entitled to certain procedural safeguards, which the court did not provide. She also argues that she should not have been found in contempt at all because there was no deadline for compliance with the court order. If the primary purpose of the contempt order is to enforce the rights of private party litigants or enforce compliance with a court order, then the contempt is civil. Criminal contempt penalties, on the other hand, are designed to punish the contemnor for disobedience of a court order; punishment is for past offenses and does not terminate upon compliance with the court order. In this case, the primary purpose of the contempt order was to enforce the rights of Mrs. Patton to possess the property of her late husband. The contempt order served to enforce compliance with the previous court order compelling Fisher (Patton’s daughter) to inventory and turn over the decedent’s property. Furthermore, the court did not order Fisher to pay a fine to the court but to pay Mrs. Patton’s attorney’s fees. Because the trial court’s order was for civil contempt, Fisher’s claim that she was denied the procedural safeguards required for a finding of constructive criminal contempt need not be addressed. It was not error for the chancellor to enter a contempt order when Fisher failed to comply with the court order to compel for over eight months. Issue 2: Unclean hands Fisher argues that the chancellor erred in granting relief to Mrs. Patton because Mrs. Patton approached the court with unclean hands in traveling to Fisher’s home in Texas, which included a late-night phone call causing Mrs. Patton to be warned for trespassing. Courts apply the maxim requiring "clean hands" only where some unconscionable act of one coming for relief has immediate and necessary relation to the equity that he seeks in respect of the matter in litigation. While the complained of actions of Mrs. Patton were directed at the property that was at issue, her actions were not so unconscionable and had no effect whatsoever upon the property. Issue 3: De minimis violations According to Fisher, her father’s items that she possessed were de minimis in comparison to the punitive sanctions that the court levied against her. In making her argument, Fisher overemphasizes the sanctions against her and undervalues the offenses that led to those sanctions. There is no merit to this argument. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
