Chasez v. Chasez, 2004-CP-01956-COA.

• Decision Date: 13 February 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2003-CA-01828.,No. 2004-CP-01956-COA.,2004-CP-01956-COA.,2003-CA-01828.
• Citation: 957 So.2d 1031
• Parties: Frederick Wesley CHASEZ, Jr., Appellant v. Kelly Sue Powell CHASEZ, Appellee.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

957 So.2d 1031

Frederick Wesley CHASEZ, Jr., Appellant v. Kelly Sue Powell CHASEZ, Appellee.

No. 2004-CP-01956-COA.

No. 2003-CA-01828.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

February 13, 2007.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 2007.

Frederick Wesley Chasez, Jr., appellant, pro se.

David R. Daniels, attorney for appellee.

Before KING, C.J., IRVING and GRIFFIS, JJ.

GRIFFIS, J., for the Court.

¶ 1. Frederick Wesley Chasez, Jr. appeals a judgment finding him in contempt for failure to pay child support. We find no error and affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2. In Chasez v. Chasez, 935 So.2d 1058, 1059(¶ 1) (Miss.Ct.App.2005), Mr. Chasez appealed the third order that found him in contempt. In our earlier opinion, we described the facts as follows:

On July 11, 1997, Kelly Chasez filed for divorce from Frederick Chasez on the basis of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. In a temporary order entered August 20, 1997, the chancellor awarded Mrs. Chasez physical custody of the two minor children, and ordered Mr. Chasez to pay $300 a month in child support. After a hearing on April 15 and 16, 1999, the chancellor executed a judgment of divorce on April 22, 1999. In granting the divorce, the chancellor noted that the record was insufficient to make a decision on child custody. He ordered that the temporary legal custody of the children be placed with the Department of Human Services (DHS), and directed that DHS conduct a home study and report back to the court within 120 days. After the DHS report was submitted to the chancellor, he gave Mrs. Chasez physical custody of the children, and ordered that both parents complete a parenting course and forty hours of counseling. The chancellor also found that Mr. Chasez had a $3,600 arrearage for twelve months of unpaid temporary child support, and directed that it be paid within forty-five days.

Mr. Chasez failed to pay any child support, and on June 7, 2000, Mrs. Chasez filed a complaint for contempt. Mrs. Chasez's attorney noticed her complaint for contempt for hearing on June 15, 2000. Mrs. Chasez's attorney mailed a copy of this notice to Mr. Chasez. There is no indication on the case docket that a Rule 81 summons was issued for the contempt hearing. Mr. Chasez, acting pro se, appeared and indicated his willingness to proceed and the court heard the contempt. The chancellor found that Mr. Chasez had absolutely refused to pay any child support for nearly two years, and was therefore in arrears by $7,800. The chancellor held Mr. Chasez in contempt, and ordered him incarcerated, until he purged himself of that contempt. On August 12, 2000, having received the assurance of Mr. Chasez of his intent to comply with the court's orders, the chancellor ordered Mr. Chasez released.

Mrs. Chasez filed a second complaint for contempt on April 15, 2002. A Rule 81 summons was issued in conjunction with this complaint. By order dated April 8, 2003, the court found that Mr. Chasez had made no attempts to pay child support, and was in arrears by $17,400, exclusive of interest. The chancellor found that while Mr. Chasez was not employed, he did have marketable skills, and had no impediments which would prevent his employment. The chancellor found that Mr. Chasez's unemployment was a scheme to avoid child support. As a result, the chancellor found Mr. Chasez in contempt and ordered him incarcerated until he purged himself by either paying the full $17,400, or by paying $5,000 and executing an agreed order to pay $200 a month in additional support until the arrearage was satisfied. On July 22, 2003, Mr. Chasez paid $5,000 of the arrearage and agreed to pay current child support at $300 a month, plus $200 a month towards the arrearage. In that same order, the chancellor set a compliance review for August 29, 2003, in Gulfport. In an order dated December 3, 2003, the court denied Mr. Chasez's motion to hold in abeyance child support, and set a show cause hearing for December 15, 2003, in the chancery courtroom in Gulfport.

On February 25, 2004, the court heard Mr. Chasez's motion for reconsideration of his request to hold in abeyance child support, the show cause order, and Mrs. Chasez's motion for attorney fees.

In an order dated March 10, 2004, the chancellor found that Mr. Chasez continued to fail in his obligation to pay current child support and the additional sum agreed upon for delinquent child support, and therefore found that he was in contempt. The court ordered Mr. Chasez incarcerated until he purged himself, suspended the incarceration until the next hearing, and set the next hearing in this case for April 1, 2004, in Hancock County. Aggrieved by that action, Mr. Chasez has appealed.

Id. at 1060-61 (¶¶ 2-6). This Court affirmed the chancellor. Id. at 1063(¶ 20).

¶ 3. On April 4, 2004, Mrs. Chasez filed another complaint for contempt, stating that Mr. Chasez had failed to pay child support for the months of March and April of 2004. A contempt hearing was held on August 11, 2004. In a judgment dated September 24, 2004, nunc pro tunc August 11, 2004, the chancellor found Mr. Chasez in contempt for failure to pay child support for the months of March, April, May, June, July, and August all of 2004. Mr. Chasez was ordered to be incarcerated until he paid a purge amount of $1,800, the arrearage accumulated. Mr. Chasez now appeals this latest judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 4. Previously, this Court stated that the following standard of review applied:

Since Mr. Chasez's contempt would have been discharged by his doing that which he previously refused to do, his contempt was civil. Common Cause of Mississippi v. Smith, 548 So.2d 412, 415 (Miss.1989). The chancellor's finding of civil contempt is subject to review under a manifest error standard. Dennis v. Dennis, 824 So.2d 604, 608(¶ 7) (Miss. 2002). However, the chancery court's interpretation and application of the law is reviewed under a de novo standard. Isom v. Jernigan, 840 So.2d 104, 106(¶ 6) (Miss.2003).

Chasez, 935 So.2d at 1061(¶ 7).

¶ 5. Here, we recognize that Mr. Chasez brings this action pro se, but "even when a litigant is pro se, a court is to apply the same procedural and evidentiary requirements upon him." Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Dev. Corp., 511 So.2d 112, 118 (Miss.1987). Pro se litigants are offered some leeway,¹ though and "this Court will review the record for any `self-evident' errors that need not be supported by citations." Goodin v. Dep't of Human Servs., 772 So.2d 1051, 1054(¶ 7) (Miss.2000).

ISSUES

¶ 6. Mr. Chasez assigns five errors by the chancellor, which we quote verbatim:

1. The Appellant/Defendant is not in contempt. He had no outstanding child support obligations.

2. False imprisonment for the purpose of:

A. Extorting money from Appellant/Defendant's family which Appellant does not have or owe.

B. Denying Appellant his due process rights to an appeal in an effort to force Appellant to agree to the dictates of a void judgment.

3. The referenced order dated April 22, 1999, filed April 28, 1999 is a void judgment in that:

A. There was not proper notice, which disallowed Appellant the right to have witnesses.

B. There was no financial information provided to Appellant as required by Chancery Court Civil Procedure 8.05.

C. The amount of child support ordered is not within the statutory guidelines of the State of Mississippi.

D. The factual findings of the Chancellor is not supported by the record.

E. Appellee did not meet evidential statutory requirements to receive a divorce under the habitual cruel and inhuman statutes.

F. There was no equitable division of marital property.

G. There was a partial adjudication of the issues of the divorce. It was not a final order of all the issues.

H. Appellant's parental rights were taken away without a hearing or clear convincing evidence of any misconduct. There was no guardian ad litum appointed to protect Appellant's children's rights or the integrity of the Appellant's family.

I. The chancellor infused his own religious beliefs to question Mississippi law and skirt the Albright factors.

4. The Appellee has petitioned a Mississippi court of equity for a judgment of relief when she has grossly unclean hands.

A. She gave false testimony on all the material issues before the divorce, during the divorce hearing and after the divorce hearing.

B. She disposed of marital property held in her name.

C. She aided and abetted the transfer of marital property held in trust in her mother's name.

5. The entire divorce, custody and contempt charges was an abuse of process, along with the misrepresentation of Frederick's attorney's shows a conspiracy to deny Frederick a fair trial, his right to appeal, his right to his children, his right to his personal property, to cover up the theft of his property.

Mr. Chasez's brief does not follow the issues as he has stated. Our analysis will address the issues we have concluded to be in contention in this appeal.

ANALYSIS

I. There was no contempt because no child support payments were outstanding.

¶ 7. Mr. Chasez claims that he did not owe Mrs. Chasez any child support payments. Hence, he was not in default on his payments. We begin our review of this issue by noting a legal principle from Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 526 (Miss. 1996):

Hoops [the appellant] cites no legal authority to support this argument. This Court has held that it is the duty of an appellant to provide authority and support of an assignment. Kelly v. State, 553 So.2d 517, 521 (Miss.1989); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss. 1988); Harris v. State, 386 So.2d 393 (Miss.1980). If a party does not provide this support this Court is under no duty to consider assignments of error when no authority is cited. Hewlett v. State, 607 So.2d 1097, 1106 (Miss.1992); Kelly, 553 So.2d at 521; Brown, 534 So.2d at 1023.

On this issue, Mr. Chasez has cited no legal authority. Although we have no duty to consider this assignment of error, we have considered this issue...