Moses v. Moses
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01471-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-05-2004 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Vagueness of final judgment - Attorney’s fees Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-25-2003 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Patricia D. Wise Disposition: Found the Appellant in contempt. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Christopher Jerome Moses |
JAMES ELDRED RENFROE
ROY J. PERILLOUX |
||
| Appellee: | Kindalin Kay Moses | RAJITA IYER MOSS BOBBY OWENS |
|
|
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 - Vagueness of final judgment - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kindalin Moses filed a contempt action against Christopher Moses for failure to exercise his option to purchase the marital home or place the home on the market for public purchase. The court found Christopher in contempt for failing to comply with the spirit of the amended final judgment of divorce and ordered him to pay $75 per day from May 17, 2003, the date the court deemed that the house should have been placed on the market, being $2,700 plus an additional $550 in attorney's fees, totaling $3,250. Christopher submitted payment of $3,250 to the chancery clerk. The notice of receipt from Kindalin's attorney for the $3,250, as release of Christopher's contempt, was filed with the court on June 24, 2003. Christopher had previously appealed the trial court's ruling regarding the divorce and division of the marital estate. At the time the trial court heard this contempt action, the Court of Appeals had not made a ruling. The Court of Appeals has now considered that appeal and based on the Court of Appeals' holding, the parties are still married. Christopher appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Contempt Christopher argues that the court erred in finding that he was in willful, civil contempt. While the date that the home was listed for sale in The Clarion-Ledger was disputed, Christopher did list the home for sale in The Clarion-Ledger and the home was listed for sale at the time the trial court heard the contempt. A defense to contempt is that the defendant was not guilty of wilful or deliberate violation of the prior judgment or a decree. Vagueness or the lack of specificity of the decree gives the contemnor another avenue for defense as well. The trial court's amended final judgment of divorce does not state anything about how Christopher had to place the home on the market for public purchase. Furthermore, the judgment did not prohibit use of The Clarion-Ledger or required that a realtor be hired. Additionally, the court also did not set any time line for the sale to be accomplished. Due to the vagueness of the amended final judgment of divorce, the court abused its discretion in finding Christopher in contempt. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Christopher argues that the court erred in awarding Kindalin $550 in attorney's fees where there was no testimony regarding the amount of her attorney's fees and no request for attorney's fees. In order to award attorney's fees in a contempt matter, the court must first consider if there was a willful violation of the court's order. Since there was no willful contempt in this case, the court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Kindalin. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
