Janssen v. Janssen


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-01003-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01003-COA ; 2010-CT-01003-COA ; 2010-CT-01003-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-20-2012
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contempt - Attorney's fees - Replacement value of items
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Russell, J.
Dissent Joined By : Irving, P.J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-25-2010
Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court
Judge: Carter Bise
Disposition: FINDING OF CONTEMPT AGAINST GREGORY JANSSEN AND REPLACEMENT COSTS OF MISSING ITEMS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES AWARDED TO ELIZABETH JANSSEN
Case Number: C2401-00-01932(4)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Gregory Eugene Janssen




THOMAS E. PAYNE



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Elizabeth Jane Janssen JACK PARSONS TADD PARSONS  

    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 - Attorney's fees - Replacement value of items

    Summary of the Facts: Elizabeth Janssen (E. Jane) filed for divorce from her husband, Gregory Janssen in 2000. Six years later, the chancery court entered a judgment of divorce and a division of marital assets. E. Jane was awarded some family heirlooms that allegedly were in the marital home where Greg still resided. After E. Jane’s attempts to procure the items were unsuccessful, E. Jane filed a citation for contempt against Greg. The chancery court ordered Greg to allow E. Jane access to the home to collect the items; however, when she went to the home, E. Jane could not locate the items. She filed another citation for contempt, and the chancellor found Greg to be in contempt of the court’s original orders and imposed thirty days of incarceration. The chancery court’s judgment also awarded E. Jane the replacement value of the items and attorneys’ fees. Greg appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Contempt Greg argues that the chancellor abused his discretion by finding that Greg was in contempt as he did not possess the items at issue. Thus, Greg claims that he “did not comply because he could not comply.” The chancellor charged Greg with constructive criminal contempt. Criminal contempt punishes for disobedience of a court order and does not terminate upon compliance with the court order. Greg was given a hearing on April 23, 2010, to address the December 11, 2009 citation for contempt. It was not until this hearing that Greg claimed that the family heirlooms either were destroyed in Hurricane Katrina or lost in the subsequent clean-up. This was four years after he was ordered by the chancery court to provide E. Jane with the items. Further, Erica testified that she saw the items in 2007 when she went to the home to retrieve some of her personal belongings. E. Jane also stated that the items were there after Hurricane Katrina. The evidence showed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Greg was not forthcoming with information regarding the status of the pertinent items during the entire course of the proceedings and that he was not cooperative in allowing E. Jane access to the items. Thus, there is no error. Issue 2: Attorney’s fees Greg argues that the award of attorneys’ fees in 2010 was excessive, since it was for E. Jane’s attorneys’ fees since 2007. The award of attorneys’ fees is generally proper if a party is found in contempt of a previous judgment. It does appear from the record that the attorneys’ fees awarded were for all charges incurred throughout the entire contempt proceedings, less the $1,000 already awarded in the September 2009 order. However, the fee statement was admitted into evidence at the April 23, 2010 hearing without any objection from Greg. Thus, he has waived this issue. In addition, there was nothing to indicate that any of the attorneys’ fees were for any work unrelated to the contempt proceedings and the retrieval of these items. Issue 3: Replacement value Greg argues that he paid E. Jane $18,500 under an agreed order (which was not presented to the chancery court until December 21, 2009) and that he was under the belief that this payment resolved all pending issues. Thus, he argues that she had no right to continue to “come after [him] for contempt over these items.” E. Jane submitted into evidence a list of the missing items with their respective values. At both hearings, Greg’s counsel objected to the evidence, arguing that no independent value of the items had been offered. However, a party may testify as to the value of his or her own property. Additionally, Greg did not provide any evidence to controvert the value of the items. Thus, there was credible evidence to support the award of replacement value for the missing items.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court