Mitchell v. Mitchell
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00897-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-09-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Clean hands doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-03-2010 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr. Disposition: HUSBAND HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY ALIMONY; CHILD SUPPORT AND VISITATION MODIFIED Case Number: 07-02-0317 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Bobby Charles Mitchell, Jr. |
VANN FREDRIC LEONARD, BETTY SLADE DEROSSETTE |
||
| Appellee: | Kimberly Betty Kilgore Mitchell | MARC E. BRAND |
|
|
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 - Clean hands doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | Bobby Mitchell and Kimberly Mitchell divorced in 2008. A settlement agreement concerning child custody, child support, and property division was incorporated into the divorce decree. Kimberly was awarded $1,000 per month in alimony, and she received ownership of the marital home. Bobby failed to make any alimony payments after March 2009. As a result, Kimberly filed a petition for contempt and modification. Bobby filed his answer and petition for modification. In his answer, Bobby admitted that he had not made his required alimony payments. Instead, he chose to place those funds into the escrow account of his attorney because Kimberly had not made mortgage payments on the house. At trial, Kimberly testified that she had made the mortgage payment through June 2009. She was unable to make the subsequent payments because of Bobby’s failure to pay her alimony. Kimberly also testified that she had attempted to sell the home via a short sell; however, Bobby had stopped the sale because it would have resulted in a tax liability for him. The chancellor found that Kimberly was the exclusive owner of the marital home, and she was not in contempt for her failure to refinance or sell the home. The chancellor held Bobby in contempt for his failure to make alimony payments and awarded Kimberly $14,280 in delinquent alimony. Bobby appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Clean hands doctrine Bobby claims that Kimberly could not seek relief from the chancellor because she failed to comply with the provision of the divorce decree that required her to keep up the mortgage payments on the home. Bobby argues that Kimberly’s failure to do so made her in contempt and invoked the clean-hands doctrine, which is his defense for refusing to make the alimony payments required by the divorce decree. The clean-hands doctrine prevents a complaining party from obtaining equitable relief in court when he is guilty of willful misconduct in the transaction at issue. At the time of the filing of Kimberly’s petition for contempt, there is no evidence that she had violated any portion of the divorce decree. It is undisputed that Bobby had stopped making his alimony payments months before Kimberly stopped making the mortgage payments. Bobby may not assert Kimberly’s failure to make the mortgage payments as a defense to the contempt proceeding when there was sufficient proof that her nonpayment was a direct result of his decision to withhold alimony payments. Issue 2: Contempt Bobby argues that the chancellor should have held Kimberly in contempt for her failure to refinance the marital home. Bobby claims that Kimberly is in contempt because, at the time of the hearing, she had failed to refinance the home within the twenty-four months following the divorce. However, Bobby never requested that the chancellor find Kimberly in contempt. In his answer and counter petition for modification, Bobby only requested that his child support be reduced and his visitation be modified. Further, the agreement merely required that Kimberly attempt to refinance the home within twenty-four months. Bobby presented absolutely no evidence that she failed to make such attempt. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
