Brown v. Gillespie, 55384

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: ROY NOBLE LEE; PATTERSON; DAN M. LEE; DAN M. LEE
• Citation: 465 So.2d 1046
• Parties: Glenda Lazarus Gillespie BROWN v. Lee Edward GILLESPIE, Jr.
• Docket Number: No. 55384,55384
• Decision Date: 06 March 1985

Page 1046

465 So.2d 1046 Glenda Lazarus Gillespie BROWN
v.
Lee Edward GILLESPIE, Jr. No. 55384. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 6, 1985.

Patricia F. Dunmore, Sanders, Blackmon & Dunmore, Natchez, for appellant.

Claude Pintard, Jr., Riley, Pintard & Hall, Natchez, for appellee.

EN BANC.

ROY NOBLE LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

On the 20th day of June, 1980, the Chancery Court of Adams County, Mississippi,

Page 1047

rendered a final decree divorcing Glenda Lazarus Gillespie (Brown) from Lee Edward Gillespie, Jr., on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Both parents were found to be fit and suitable persons to have the custody of Jonathan Lee Gillespie, two-year-old child of the parties. However, custody was granted to the mother with the right of reasonable visitation on the part of the father. Gillespie also was ordered to pay $150.00 per month child support for the boy.

Approximately three and one-half (3 1/2) years later Brown filed a petition for contempt citation averring that Gillespie had made only one $150.00 payment on the support, was in default in the sum of five thousand eight hundred fifty dollars ($5,850), and was in contempt of the court. Gillespie filed an answer denying default and contempt. He further filed a cross-petition asking the court to set reasonable visitation with the child and reasonable times when the child could visit him.

The chancellor heard the cause and entered a decree on November 22, 1983, adjudicating (1) that Gillespie was in arrears for child support in the sum of five thousand thirty dollars ($5,030); (2) that he was not in willful contempt of the court; (3) that judgment be entered in favor of the appellant for $5,030.00, but that execution not issue on the judgment so long as Gillespie paid $150.00 per month plus $50.00 on the delinquent child support; (4) set visitation rights with the child. Brown has appealed to this Court and assigns five (5) errors in the trial below.

I.

THE CHANCERY COURT OF ADAMS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, ERRED BY

ENTERING A JUDGMENT FOR AN AMOUNT WHICH WAS

CLEARLY MATHEMATICALLY INCORRECT.

Appellant contends that the total arrearage was $5,850.00, appellee paid only $350.00 on support, and that the total amount due was $5,500.00.

When appellant took the witness stand, her attorney made the statement to the court that the amount in question "would just be a matter of mathematical computation, but it would be about $6,000." If the attorneys had stipulated the amount or had the court instructed the appellant's attorney to make the calculation and submit it to the opposing attorney for approval, and then entered the correct amount due in the record, the question here might be different. However, appellant's attorney asked her what had been paid and the amount then due. Appellant's answer was not direct. In order to clarify the question, the court inquired if it was in the area of $6,000, and she replied, "$5,080 I think."

Further in the direct examination, in order to fix the amount appellant claimed as owing, the following was asked her:

BY THE COURT: Was that before the $200.00 was paid?

A. That was before the $200.00 was paid, he paid $50.00, I guess, I suppose, on the back payments, which would make $50.00 off the $80.00, make it $5,030.00.

There was no testimony as to the amount in arrears by any person except appellant. She was vague and indefinite in her figures, but finally settled on the figure of $5,030.00. This Court will not hold the lower court in error for finding the exact amount in arrears as that to which appellant testified, there being no other direct evidence as to the amount due.

II.

THE CHANCERY COURT OF ADAMS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, ERRED BY

REFUSING TO FIND THE RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT.

The chancellor held that appellee was not in willful contempt of the court. Appellant argues that the appellee was in contempt as a matter of law when he failed to sustain his burden of purging himself of contempt and showing clearly that he complied with the decree or was unable to do so. In Duncan v. Duncan, 417 So.2d 908 (Miss.1982), the Court stated:

Page 1048

Where a party is unable to comply with a divorce decree, he should with reasonable promptitude, make the fact known to the court by proper petition and have the decree modified or suspended, and not wait until he has been cited for contempt. If a party fails to take this course of action, he will, in response to the citation for contempt, be required to make out a clear case of inability. Redding v. Redding, 167 Miss. 780, 150 So. 776 (1933). The burden was on appellant to purge himself of the contempt by showing that he had complied with the decree, was unable to do so, or impossibility of performance. Rainwater v. Rainwater, 236 Miss. 412, 110 So.2d 608 (1959).

417 So.2d 909-910. In the case of Collins v. Collins, 171...