Mabus v. Mabus
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01728-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-03-2005 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Attorneys’ fees Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Cobb, P.J., Easley and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlson, J. Dissent Joined By : Waller, P.J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-03-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Ed Patten Disposition: Awarding the Appellee attorney fees. District Attorney: Hinds County Chancery Court Case Number: G98-28 R/1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Julia Gates Hines Mabus |
M. JUDITH BARNETT |
||
| Appellee: | Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr. | RICHARD C. ROBERTS, III ROBERT W. KING |
|
|
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 - Attorneys’ fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | As part of the final judgment of divorce of Julia Mabus and Raymond Mabus, Jr., Ray and Julie were granted joint physical custody of the children born to their union, with sole legal custody being vested in Ray. The chancery court later entered an agreed order which modified the schedule of physical custody for the parties, setting out specific times and dates for the beginning and end of each visitation period. Julie decided to take the children on a trip to Maine and informed Ray that she would not comply with the court’s order. At the direction of Ray, two attorneys drafted and filed a petition for contempt in the chancery court. At a hearing, an agreed order was entered. When Julie failed to return the children as required, she was adjudicated to be in contempt. The chancellor ordered Julie to be incarcerated in the Hinds County Detention Facility for a period of five days and imposed a $500 fine against Julie for her willful and contumacious contempt. The chancellor awarded Ray attorney’s fees in the amount of $13,547.50. Julie appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Julie argues that the court erred in awarding attorney fees in the full amount charged by Ray’s two attorneys including, but not limited to, charges incurred prior to the actual filing of the petition for citation of contempt and charges incurred up to the time an actual act of contempt occurred. Where a party’s intentional misconduct causes the opposing party to expend time and money needlessly, attorney fees and expenses should be awarded to the wronged party. The chancellor in this case relied on substantial credible evidence regarding attorney’s fees. Both attorneys’ affidavits included a detailed itemized billing statement outlining how they arrived at their fees. Both affidavits contain detailed information as to educational background of the attorneys, their years of experience practicing law, their experience in domestic relations matters, their regularly hourly rate, the rates actually charged to Ray Mabus, the manner in which they recorded their time, and the usual and customary rates of attorneys with similar experience in the Jackson area. A review of the billing statements shows that there was nothing duplicative about the work performed. The work required was beyond that which is typically required in a routine contempt action. In addition, Julie did not put on proof that the time required and rate were unreasonable. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
