Hanshaw v. Hanshaw
| Docket Number: | 2005-CT-01680-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01680-COA ; 2005-CA-01680-COA ; 2005-CA-01680-COA ; 2005-CA-01680-COA ; 2005-CT-01680-SCT ; 2005-CT-01680-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-20-2011 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Notice - M.R.C.P. 81(d) - Penalty - Section 9-1-17 Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. 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: 07-29-2005 Appealed from: LAFAYETTE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Edwin Hayes Roberts, Jr. Disposition: Following the chancery court’s equitable division of the Hanshaws’ property, Shirley was held in contempt for failure to leave the marital home by the court-ordered deadline. The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment in Shirley’s favor. Case Number: 98-206R |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses and remands a previous judgment by the Court of Appeals. See the original COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO55224.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Shirley Ann James Hanshaw |
STEWART GUERNSEY |
||
| Appellee: | Larry Hanshaw | THOMAS H. FREELAND, IV |
|
|
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 - M.R.C.P. 81(d) - Penalty - Section 9-1-17 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Following the chancery court’s equitable division of the Hanshaws’ property, Shirley was held in contempt for failure to leave the marital home by the court-ordered deadline. The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment in Shirley’s favor. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Notice Because contempt proceedings are distinct actions, they require notice consistent with M.R.C.P. 81(d). A chancery court’s continuing jurisdiction to enforce a judgment does not waive the requirement for a Rule 81 summons in contempt actions. Here, the record does not indicate that Shirley received proper notice of the October 4 proceeding which led to her contempt citation. While counsel for both parties appeared before the court on October 4, Rule 81 requires that a summons be personally served on Shirley before the contempt proceeding. Further, the record does not indicate that a Rule 81 summons was ever issued after Larry filed his October 6 contempt motion or before the court’s October 7 order holding Shirley in contempt. Because Shirley did not receive proper notice or an opportunity to defend against the charges in a contempt hearing, the chancellor’s contempt finding and subsequent denial of Shirley’s motion to reconsider is reversed. However, the Court of Appeals erred by rendering judgment in Shirley’s favor. While the record is limited, Shirley clearly did not comply with the chancery court’s orders to vacate the marital home. Because Shirley did not follow unambiguous court orders, the case is remanded to the chancery court for contempt proceedings properly noticed pursuant to Rule 81(d)(2). Issue 2: Contempt penalty Civil contempt orders enforce a private party’s rights or compel compliance with a court’s order. Hence, the contemnor pays any resulting penalty to the injured party. Because civil contempt vindicates a private party’s rights, the imposed sanction should not exceed the injured party’s damages and expenses. And generally, the court may award the prevailing party attorney’s fees. Shirley argues that the contempt finding was necessarily criminal. She argues that since the order finding her in contempt was entered after her contemptuous acts were completed, there was no way for her to purge herself of contempt. Further, if the chancellor imposed criminal contempt, the court exceeded section 9-1-17, which allows a $100 fine per contempt event. While disputed, the record shows that the chancellor intended to impose civil contempt. The primary purpose of the prospective penalty was to compel Shirley’s compliance with the court’s earlier judgment. The chancellor distributed the sanction to Larry without a finding on the damages, expenses, and attorney’s fees that Larry had incurred because of Shirley’s delay in leaving the home. Therefore, the chancellor committed manifest error in not making this necessary finding for a civil-contempt citation. Shirley has not “purged” herself of a civil-contempt finding simply because the time for her performance has passed. On remand, any potential civil contempt sanction should appropriately measure Larry’s damages and attorney’s fees. Likewise, in any future constructive criminal contempt proceeding, the court should allow Shirley the appropriate procedural safeguards. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
