Hanshaw v. Hanshaw
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01680-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01680-COA ; 2005-CA-01680-COA ; 2005-CA-01680-COA ; 2005-CT-01680-SCT ; 2005-CT-01680-SCT ; 2005-CT-01680-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-15-2008 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: REVERSED AND RENDERED –- 02/13/2007; 02/27/2007 - MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED AND GRANTED; AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART, AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Notice - Excessive fine Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Dissenting Author : KING, C.J., without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial; Motion for Rehearing Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-29-2005 Appealed from: Lafayette County Chancery Court Judge: Edwin Hayes Roberts, Jr. Disposition: APPELLANT FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ORDERED TO PAY $500 PER HOUR FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER, NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY-FOUR HOURS Case Number: 98-206R |
|
| Note: | MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 02/27/2007-GRANTED; AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART, AND REMANDED – 04/15/2008; The motion for rehearing is granted and the original opinion of this Court is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SHIRLEY ANN JAMES HANSHAW |
RALPH STEWART GUERNSEY |
||
| Appellee: | LARRY HANSHAW | THOMAS HENRY FREELAND |
|
|
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 - Notice - Excessive fine |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is granted, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Shirley Hanshaw and Larry Hanshaw were divorced by the chancery court, which also divided up the marital estate. Pursuant to the division, Shirley was ordered to vacate the marital residence so that it could be sold. When she failed to do so, she was cited for contempt of court and fined $12,000, which was paid to Larry from Shirley’s proceeds from the sale. Shirley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Notice Shirley argues that she did not receive proper notice of the court’s contempt action. The court’s final judgment was entered on September 3, 2004, and Larry filed a Rule 59 motion for clarification on September 13, 2004. Because Larry’s motion was filed timely, the court retained jurisdiction over the case until it finally ruled on Larry’s motion. The court did not rule on the motion for clarification until October 14, 2004. Therefore, there was no need for the court to issue a summons and notice to Shirley, as the court had continuing jurisdiction over the case. Issue 2: Contempt fine Shirley argues that the contempt fine is excessive. Shirley’s claims of inability to move due to her illness are belied by the record. Larry does not claim that Shirley’s delay resulted in any reduction in the sale price of the house. Moreover, the settlement sheet shows that after debts, attorney’s fees, and other costs, including the $12,000 fine, were paid, Larry was credited with $65,213.21, while Shirley was credited only with $11,633.21. Therefore, regardless of what evidence Shirley produced regarding her inability to move, the chancellor knew that Larry had suffered no financial loss in the sale of the marital residence. It is unclear what the chancellor was attempting to do when he fined Shirley $12,000. Because the fine was intended to compel compliance with the court’s order, the contempt appears to be civil in nature. However, while civil contempt fines are sometimes payable to the opposing party, they are related to, and ordinarily should not exceed, the injured party’s proved losses and litigation expenses, including counsel fees. Nothing in the record indicates what additional attorney’s fees, if any, Larry incurred as a result of Shirley’s contempt. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the $12,000 was even remotely related to any injury suffered by Larry, the court’s decision to levy such a large fine and then make that fine payable to Larry was in error. Shirley’s contemptuous actions would necessarily be indirect criminal contempt, because her refusal to vacate occurred outside the presence of the court. Clearly, Shirley was not afforded the safeguards that would accompany a charge of criminal contempt. Additionally, criminal contempt charges are only payable to the court, not to an opposing party. In addition, $12,000 was an excessive fine to levy against Shirley, regardless of to whom the fine was payable. The sanctions levied against a party must be reasonable. On remand, the court is to consider a more reasonable amount of sanctions and to whom those sanctions should properly be paid. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
