Cossitt v. Cossitt


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-02087-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-19-2008
Opinion Author: KING, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contempt - College expenses - E-mail communications - Attorney’s fees
Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Griffis, J. with separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Lee, P.J. Barnes and Ishee, JJ.
Procedural History: Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-11-2006
Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court
Judge: Stuart Robinson
Disposition: PETITION TO CITE FORMER HUSBAND FOR CONTEMPT DENIED.
Case Number: 2002-2102-S/2

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: ANGELA WILBANKS COSSITT




CHARLES R. WILBANKS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: JOHNNY KEVIN COSSITT JOHN ROBERT WHITE, PAMELA GUREN BACH  

    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 - College expenses - E-mail communications - Attorney’s fees

    Summary of the Facts: Angela Cossitt filed a petition for contempt that alleged Johnny Kevin Cossitt had failed to abide by the court’s previous orders in a number of ways. The chancellor denied Angela’s petition for contempt and modification of child support. The chancellor granted Kevin relief under the provision in the divorce judgment that required the parties to pay the college expenses of the minor children. Further, the chancellor denied each party’s motion for attorney’s fees. Angela appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Contempt Angela argues that the chancellor should have found Kevin in contempt, because Kevin failed to report his correct income to the court as required by the temporary order; Kevin altered his paycheck stubs that he was required to provide Angela; Kevin failed to obtain health insurance for his children; and Kevin interfered with and violated Angela’s privacy. While the chancellor stated that Kevin failed to inform the court of a change in the amount of child support, it still declined to find Kevin in contempt. In doing so, the chancellor specifically stated that Kevin had kept Angela informed as to the amount he was making prior to divorce. Further, testimony at trial from both parties was that Kevin’s income was highly variable during that time period. Thus, the chancellor did not commit manifest error when he failed to find Kevin in contempt. With regard to the pay stubs, Kevin admitted that he began putting liquid paper over the deposit date of the pay stub. However, the remainder of the pay stub, including the pay period and amount earned, remained visible. Thus, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion when he failed to find Kevin in contempt for placing liquid paper over the deposit dates on his pay stubs. With regard to the insurance coverage, it was undisputed that Kevin did pay 75% of his daughters’ medical costs prior to obtaining medical insurance in July 2005. In addition, he obtained employment related group insurance as soon as it became available. The chancellor found that Kevin could have and should have provided full medical coverage for the minor children and that the provision on insurance did not allow Kevin to provide his own method of providing health care to his daughters. However, the chancellor stated that he was not convinced by clear evidence that Kevin had willfully disobeyed the orders of the court. Findings of fact by a chancellor, such as whether Kevin willfully violated the order, are awarded great discretion. In addition, the chancellor required Kevin to fully reimburse the remaining $2,150.48 Angela paid in premiums for health insurance coverage from March 2004 until June 2005. Thus, there was no error. With regard to harassing e-mails, since neither party had clean hands when it came to the communications, the trial court was correct in not finding Kevin in contempt. Issue 2: College expenses Angela argues that the court erred in relieving Kevin of any further college expenses for the parties’ minor children. The divorce judgment provided that each party was to be responsible for “one-half (½) of all reasonable and necessary costs of a college education for each child, provided . . . that each child maintains full-time college status and maintains a 2.0 grade point average.” Each of the couple’s daughters received less than a 2.0 grade point average at the end of their first semesters. While courts generally favor a parental obligation to pay for a child’s college expenses, it must be balanced with the child’s responsibility and aptitude to exceed at college. Since the girls failed to show the responsibility and aptitude to succeed at college, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion when he relieved Kevin of the girls’ college expenses after the first semester. Issue 3: E-mail communications Angela argues that the chancellor should have restricted Kevin’s e-mails due to some questionable material he had forwarded to his daughters. In order to restrict visitation, and likewise communication, of the non-custodial parent, evidence must be presented that the restriction is necessary to avoid harm to the child. During the hearing, Kevin admitted that at least one of the e-mails he sent to his daughters was sent by accident. The chancellor took the proper action in urging Kevin to be more mindful of his communications with his daughters. Issue 4: Attorney’s fees Angela argues that the chancellor should have granted her request for attorney’s fees. While Angela had spent a great deal on her children, the court recognized that her attorney’s fees were $5,830 and that she was represented by her father. Thus, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying Angela’s request for attorney’s fees.


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