Covin v. Covin

• Docket Number: 2022-CA-00019-COA
• Decision Date: 08 August 2023
• Parties: STACEY DUHE COVIN APPELLANT v. MATTHEW ALAN COVIN APPELLEE
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

1

STACEY DUHE COVIN APPELLANT v. MATTHEW ALAN COVIN APPELLEE

No. 2022-CA-00019-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

August 8, 2023

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: FORREST COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MICHAEL CHADWICK SMITH

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHASE FORD MORGAN

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: RENEE M. PORTER

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., McDONALD AND EMFINGER, JJ.

EMFINGER, J.

¶1. On December 7, 2021, the Chancery Court of Forrest County entered an opinion and final judgment on Matthew Covin's June 9, 2020 "Complaint for Contempt," Matthew's July 2, 2020 "Amended Motion for Contempt," and responsive motions filed by Stacey Covin finding both parties in contempt and denying both their requests for attorney's fees. Aggrieved by the ruling of the chancery court, Stacey appeals.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Matthew and Stacey were married on April 12, 2012, with their final separation occurring on September 9, 2016. The parties have one son, FAC,^[1] born in September 2013.

On September 19, 2016, Stacey filed a complaint for divorce and motion for temporary relief. Matthew filed his answer and a counterclaim on October 5, 2016. After a hearing on November 17, 2016, the chancery court issued a temporary order governing matters such as custody, spousal support property division, and financial responsibilities. The order also provided for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor child, with the appointment to be made by a separate order. On April 8, 2020, the chancery court entered an order allowing the withdrawal of fault grounds, and a final judgment of divorce was entered on the same day. The final judgment of divorce incorporated a settlement agreement for child custody, child support, and property.^[2]

¶3. On April 14, 2020, Matthew filed a complaint for contempt alleging Stacey failed to allow visitation. After a video hearing on May 1, 2020, the chancellor entered an order finding Stacey in contempt and ordered her to pay Matthew $750 for attorney's fees and $158 for court costs. On May 11, 2020, Stacey filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, for an amendment of the order of contempt, for a new trial, or for altering the order. ¶4. On June 9, 2020, Matthew filed a motion for contempt and amended that motion on July 2, 2020. The amended motion asked the chancellor to (1) order that the marital home and property be listed for sale immediately; (2) require Stacey to either immediately or upon sale of the marital home and property remit to Matthew his $49,082 interest in the marital property; (3) issue an order for Matthew to be allowed to enter the marital home and property to retrieve his personal belongings; and (4) require Stacey to account for Matthew's missing personal belongings, all in accordance with the property settlement agreement.^[3] On June 18, 2020, the chancellor denied Stacey's May 11, 2020 motions and ordered that the previous order of contempt remain in effect. Stacey filed a response to Matthew's amended motion on August 12, 2020, with her own counterclaim for contempt, alleging that Matthew had failed to remit $10,000 awarded to her in the final judgment of divorce.^[4] After a one-day trial on October 26, 2021, with testimony from Stacey and Matthew only, the chancellor issued his ruling on December 7, 2021, finding both parties in contempt and concluding:

IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Matt's contempt claim in GRANTED.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that as part of the Court's clarification of the Property Settlement Agreement, Stacey will tender the Smith and Wesson pistol, the weed eater, the hedge clippers, the pole saw, and the chain saw, in working order, to Matt within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Opinion and Final Judgment. Should Stacey fail to tender these items to Matt within thirty (30) days, she shall turn herself in to the custody of the Sheriff of Forrest County, Mississippi, to be incarcerated until such time that she fulfills the terms of this Opinion and Final Judgment.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Stacey's contempt claim is GRANTED. Matt will tender $10,380.00 to Stacey via cashier's check within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Opinion and final Judgment. Should he not purge himself of this contempt within thirty (30) days, he shall turn himself in to the custody of the Sheriff of Forrest County, Mississippi, to be incarcerated until such time that he purges himself of contempt.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that both parties come to the Court with unclean hands. Both requests for an award of attorney's fees are DENIED.

IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any and all other relief requested by the parties by way of pleadings, motions, or submissions filed or pending on the record at trial, not addressed and afforded herein, is deemed DENIED and prayers therefore are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with each party bearing their own costs of litigation.

It is from this ruling Stacey appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5. In Pogue v. Pogue, 126 So.3d 967, 970 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013), this Court stated:

In domestic-relations cases, appellate courts are limited in their review of the issues. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 930 (Miss. 1994). "We will not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong [or] clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard." Taylor v. Bell, 87 So.3d 1134, 1137 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App.2012).

ANALYSIS

I. The chancery court did not err in making a sua sponte clarification and modification of the parties' final judgment of divorce and by ordering Stacey's incarceration should she fail to comply.

¶6. In his order, the chancellor found:

Stacey unilaterally decided what personal [items] belonged to Matt when she placed his belongings outside. Although she was contemptuous by not allowing Matt to enter the home to retrieve his personal items, she was not contemptuous in delineating what items would be left for Matt as the list in the Properly Settlement Agreement was vague. The Court finds the vagueness of the Property Settlement Agreement as to specific items is a proper defense.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that Stacey unilaterally decided which items Matt was entitled to receive. This is inequitable. The Court therefore, in equity, must clarify the Property Settlement Agreement as to who owns those items on the list Matt claims he did not receive. As to the dispute over the Smith and Wesson pistol, firearms are mentioned twice in the Property Settlement Agreement. The parties agreed that Stacey would retain a firearm currently in the possession of the Petal Police Department. The other mention of firearms is on page twelve, where the parties agreed that Matt would receive the firearms kept in the marital residence. Stacey argues the Smith and Wesson should not be included in that list of firearms because the pistol is located in her automobile and not "in the marital residence." The Court disagrees and clarifies the Property Settlement Agreement to express a specific award of one particular firearm to Stacey, the firearm currently in the possession of the Petal Police Department, and the remainder of the firearms being awarded to Matt, including the Smith and Wesson.

As to the bush hog, there is no dispute that it did exist. Stacey stated that the bush hog is no longer on the property and she has no knowledge of what happened to it. She did not report it as stolen. Matt claims that the bush hog was his and that he was the only one that used it. Stacey did not dispute this. According to Matt, the bush hog was old and worth only a few hundred dollars. The Court finds the bush hog was in Stacey's possession when it was awarded to Matt as part of his equitable distribution and was also in Stacey's possession when it disappeared. At the closing, Matt received $50,000.00 instead of $49,082.00. These additional funds he received shall be compensation for not receiving the bush hog. As to the compound bow and the 80 pounds of lead, the whereabouts of these items were disputed and neither party submitted sufficient evidence for the Court to render a finding on either item. As such, the issue on these items is moot. Regarding the four-wheeler, Matt conceded that it was a gift to "the girls." Since it was a gift, the Court finds that Stacey shall retain ownership and possession of the four-wheeler. As to the ice chest, there was testimony both parties used this item. It will therefore remain with Stacey. As to the chainsaw, pole saw, weed eater, and hedge clippers, the usage evidence on these items favored Matt. These items are therefore awarded to Matt.

Stacey argues that the chancellor erred by requiring her to deliver items of personalty to Matthew that were not specifically listed in the agreement. Stacey contends that since the items Matthew claims were not specifically listed in the property settlement agreement, which Matthew's attorney drafted, the language from the property settlement itself should have prevailed. The property settlement agreement provided that other than the items of personalty delineated in the agreement, the personalty "in the possession of each respective party shall be that party's exclusive property, and the other party shall relinquish any and all claims to said property." Stacey cites Williams v. Williams, 37 So.3d 1171 (Miss. 2010), where the supreme court found that property settlement agreements are contractual in nature, and since the items Matthew claimed should be returned to him were not listed in the settlement agreement, "the plain language of their agreement should control."

¶7. The chancellor found that certain provisions of the property settlement agreement were vague. The agreement...