Chasez v. Chasez
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01828-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-01828-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-13-2007 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: The judgment of the Chancery Court of Hancock County is affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Child support payments - Void judgment of divorce - Unclean hands - Inability to pay - Right to counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-22-2003 Appealed from: Hancock County Chancery Court Judge: Jim Persons Disposition: JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT Case Number: 97-0495 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2004-CP-01956-COA; Frederick Wesley Chasez, Jr. v. Kelly Sue Powell Chasez; Hancock Chancery Court; LC Case #: 97-00495; Ruling Date: 08/11/2004; Ruling Judge: James Persons | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Frederick Wesley Chasez, Jr. |
FREDERICK WESLEY CHASEZ, JR. (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | KELLY SUE POWELL CHASEZ | DAVID R. DANIELS |
|
|
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 - Child support payments - Void judgment of divorce - Unclean hands - Inability to pay - Right to counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | In Chasez v. Chasez, 935 So. 2d 1058 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), Frederick Chasez, Jr. appealed the third order that found him in contempt for failure to pay child support. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor. In 2004, Mrs. Chasez filed another complaint for contempt, stating that Mr. Chasez had failed to pay child support for the months of March and April of 2004. The chancellor found Mr. Chasez in contempt for failure to pay child support for the months of March, April, May, June, July, and August, 2004. Mr. Chasez was ordered to be incarcerated until he paid a purge amount of $1,800. Mr. Chasez appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Child support payments Mr. Chasez argues that he did not owe Mrs. Chasez any child support payments. Mr. Chasez appealed the judgment of contempt, not the original order establishing child support payments at $300 a month. Therefore, the bond entitled him to a stay of execution for the amount adjudicated in the March 11, 2004 judgment, which was for non-payment of child support through February 15, 2004. As of March 15, 2004, the next child support payment of $300 was due and likewise each month thereafter. The chancellor was thus correct to determine that Mr. Chasez owed child support payments for the months of March, April, May, June, July, and August of 2004. Issue 2: Void judgment of divorce Mr. Chasez argues that he is entitled to relief from the contempt order because the underlying seven-year-old judgment of divorce was void. Because of the time lapse between the entry of the judgment and his request for relief, many of the issues that he has argued are precluded from review. Most of the issues should have been brought on direct appeal of the divorce judgment. His argument that the judgment is void due to lack of notice will be considered since it could rise to a jurisdictional level. The record shows that Mr. Chasez made no objection to lack of notice. Any objections to service of process may be waived if a defendant appears in an action without raising the objection in the initial pleadings or attached motions. Issue 3: Unclean hands Mr. Chasez argues that Mrs. Chasez should be denied any relief, because she comes before the chancery court with unclean hands. Because he failed to raise this in the contempt proceeding which he has currently appealed, the issue is not preserved for appeal. Issue 4: Inability to pay Mr. Chasez alludes to his inability to pay as a defense to the contempt. Once contempt is established, the burden is on the defendant to show his inability to pay with particularity, not just in general terms. Mr. Chasez put on no evidence to establish his inability to pay, much less a showing with any particularity as required. Issue 5: Right to counsel Mr. Chasez argues that he was denied his right to counsel. There is no right to counsel in a civil proceeding. He seems to claim that he had a constitutional right to effective counsel. However, there is no case law that would require counsel in a civil contempt to meet the familiar standard for ineffective assistance of counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
