Christopher Jerome Moses v. Kindalin Kay Moses

879 So. 2d 1036 (Miss. 2004) · Supreme Court of Mississippi · August 5, 2004 · No. No. 2003-CA-01471-SCT

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed a contempt judgment arising from a divorce decree requiring the marital home to be offered for public sale if the husband's purchase option was not exercised. The court held that the amended divorce judgment was too vague to support a finding of willful contempt or an award of attorney's fees because it did not specify how the home had to be placed on the market. The court reversed and rendered the contempt judgment and attorney's-fee award and ordered repayment of $3,250 to the husband.

Court
Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the Court
Easley, Justice, for the Court; Waller, P.J.; Easley, J.; Carlson, J.
Jurisdiction
Mississippi
Decision date
August 5, 2004
Docket number
No. 2003-CA-01471-SCT
Procedural posture
Christopher Moses appealed a chancery court order finding him in willful civil contempt and awarding the appellee attorney's fees for his alleged failure to comply with provisions concerning the sale of the marital home.
Standard of review
Contempt judgments are reviewed ab initio. The Supreme Court gives limited deference to the chancellor's ultimate factual findings, upholding them when supported by substantial evidence and reversing findings that are manifestly wrong. The inquiry includes whether the order was violated and whether compliance was possible.
Precedential value
Published Mississippi Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Christopher Jerome Moses v. Kindalin Kay Moses
Disposition
reversed

Topics

family law procedureremediesappellate proceduredivorce

Practice areas

family lawcivil contemptappellate procedureattorney's fees

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the chancellor erred in finding Christopher in willful civil contempt for failing to place the marital home on the market in the manner the chancellor expected.
  2. Whether the chancellor erred in awarding Kindalin attorney's fees in the contempt proceeding.

Holdings

  1. The chancellor abused its discretion by finding Christopher in contempt because the amended final judgment was too vague to identify how the home had to be placed on the market. The judgment did not require use of a realtor or reputable real-estate agency, did not prohibit a newspaper advertisement, and did not establish a timeline for completing the sale.
  2. The attorney's-fee award was erroneous because the vague judgment prevented a finding that Christopher willfully violated the court's order, and a finding of willful violation is required before attorney's fees may be awarded in a contempt matter.

Key quotations

"There are other defenses as well. For example, the defendant may show that he was not guilty of wilful or deliberate violation of the prior judgment or a decree." (879 So. 2d at 1040)
"A person is entitled to be informed with a high degree of clarity as to exactly what [his] obligations are under a court order before [he] can be found in contempt for willingly disobeying that order." (879 So. 2d at 1040)
Therefore, for all the foregoing reasons, we reverse and render the judgment of contempt and the award of attorney's fees. (879 So. 2d at 1041)

Factual background

The amended divorce judgment gave Christopher the first option to purchase the marital home and, if he did not exercise that option, required that the home be placed on the market for public purchase. Christopher advertised the home in the real-estate section of The Clarion-Ledger, but the chancellor found that he had not followed the spirit of the judgment because he had not listed the home with a reputable real-estate agency. The chancellor imposed a $2,700 contempt assessment and $550 in attorney's fees, which Christopher paid.

Procedural history

After the Hinds County Chancery Court entered an amended final judgment of divorce requiring Christopher to exercise an option to purchase the marital home or place it on the market, Kindalin filed a contempt motion. The chancery court found Christopher in contempt, assessed $2,700 in fines and $550 in attorney's fees, and ordered incarceration until he purged the contempt. Christopher paid $3,250 and appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and rendered the contempt and fee awards, ordering repayment of the $3,250.

Remand instructions

Kindalin Kay Moses must deposit $3,250 into the Registry of the Chancery Court of Hinds County within 30 days of the Supreme Court's mandate. Upon receipt, the chancery clerk must promptly disburse the funds to Christopher Moses.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…