Ensley v. Ensley
Decision Date | 20 October 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 32668,32668 |
Citation | 239 Ga. 860,238 S.E.2d 920 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | Robert F. ENSLEY v. Barbara T. ENSLEY. |
Paul R. Koehler, Atlanta, for appellant.
Grubbs & Platt, J. Milton Grubbs, David S. Marotte, Marietta, for appellee.
This appeal raises the issue of whether a father who wilfully refuses to pay child support required by a divorce decree may be found guilty of criminal contempt of court and unconditionally imprisoned for 20 days pursuant to Code § 24-2615(5).
The trial court found that the defendant father was able to pay the alimony and child support awarded in the decree but had refused to do so. The court found him in contempt and sentenced him as follows:
The defendant-appellant enumerates that order as error and urges only that the sanction of criminal contempt (unconditional imprisonment) is not a sanction available to the trial court for his refusal to make payments required by a court order, as such imprisonment would constitute imprisonment for debt in violation of our Constitution (Code § 2-120).
The difference between civil and criminal contempt has been frequently stated, Cobb v. Black, 34 Ga. 162(2) (1865); Davis v. Davis, 138 Ga. 8(1), 74 S.E. 830 (1912); Easley v. Easley, 238 Ga. 180(3), 231 S.E.2d 763 (1977), and almost as frequently overlooked, e. g., McCullough v. McCullough, 208 Ga. 776, 778-779, 69 S.E.2d 764 (1952). Suffice it to say here that purpose is the key consideration. 17 Am.Jur.2d Contempt § 4. The conditional or unconditional imposition of a fine or imprisonment indicates the purpose of an order. If the contemnor is imprisoned for a specified unconditional period (not to exceed 20 days under Code § 24-2615), the purpose is punishment and thus the contempt is criminal. If the contemnor is imprisoned only until he performs a specified act, the purpose is remedial and hence the contempt is civil. Davis v. Davis, supra. 1
We note that there is nothing inherent in a divorce decree or alimony award which prevents wilful disobedience of its commands from being punished by criminal contempt proceedings. For example, an unconditional fine for refusal of a mother to allow a father's visitation was approved in Bowen v. Bowen, 230 Ga. 670(3), 198 S.E.2d 862 (1973). In Bowen, the order provided that if the fine were not paid, the contemnor would be imprisoned for 10 days. Moreover, a small but unconditional fine for nonpayment of alimony was impliedly approved in Fint v. Johnson, 229 Ga. 188, 190 S.E.2d 32 (1972).
There is at least one decision, however, holding that the sanction of criminal contempt is not available to punish disobedience to an alimony award. Mathews v. Mathews, 222 Ga. 311(3), 149 S.E.2d 666 (1966). In Mathews, the court reasoned that unconditional imprisonment for nonpayment of alimony would constitute imprisonment for debt.
On the other hand, there are numerous cases holding that imprisonment conditioned upon payment of alimony is not imprisonment for debt where the contemnor is found to be able but unwilling to pay. Carlton v. Carlton, 44 Ga. 216(3) (1871); Lewis v. Lewis, 80 Ga. 706, 6 S.E. 918 (1888); Heflinger v. Heflinger, 172 Ga. 889, 159 S.E. 242 (1931); Brannon v. Brannon, 225 Ga. 677, 171 S.E.2d 123 (1969). Compare Horton v. Horton, 222 Ga. 430, 150 S.E.2d 630 (1966). Although Carlton v. Carlton, supra, and the subsequently cited cases involved civil contempt (i. e., conditional imprisonment), the logic of those cases nevertheless is applicable. A man who refuses to pay alimony or child support when he is able to do so is imprisoned for his refusal to abide by the court's order, not for debt. As was said in Carlton v. Carlton, supra at 220:
The lack of precision in our divorce-contempt decisions (including most recently this author's opinion in Easley v. Easley, 238 Ga. 180(3), 231 S.E.2d 763 (1977)) arises from the correctly decided case of Davis v. Davis, 138 Ga. 8, supra. In Davis, the contemnor was ordered imprisoned, but not if he paid the alimony specified by the court. Although imprisonment was ordered, it was conditional. That was a civil contempt proceeding. This court found it to be a civil proceeding, saying (138 Ga. at 10): The foregoing language has been quoted and cited as authority for the proposition that an attachment for contempt for failure to pay alimony is civil in nature. Mendel v. Mendel, 202 Ga. 675, 676-677, 44 S.E.2d 257 (1947...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Rollins
...contempt provides a logical framework for analyzing the issue at hand. For instance, the line of reasoning used in Ensley v. Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 238 S.E.2d 920 (1977), furnishes certain insights into the problem confronted by this Court in determining the purpose of Defendants' actions. In......
-
Sommer v. Sommer
...a willful failure to obey the order of the court and pay the alimony, as opposed to imprisonment for debt. See e.g., Ensley v. Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 238 S.E.2d 920 (1977). ¶13 The argument made here is that when the alimony decree-required payment is reduced to a judgment its nature is chang......
-
American Medical v. Parker
...264 Ga. 362, 364, 444 S.E.2d 743 (1994); Carey Canada, Inc. v. Hinely, 257 Ga. 150, 151, 356 S.E.2d 202 (1987); Ensley v. Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 861-862, 238 S.E.2d 920 (1977). 11. Ford, 270 Ga. at 315-316, 509 S.E.2d 612 (quoting City of Cumming v. Realty Dev. Corp., 268 Ga. 461, 462, 491 S.......
-
Carey Canada, Inc. v. Hinely
...factor in determining whether a contempt is civil or criminal is the purpose for which the power is exercised.' " Ensley v. Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 861, 238 S.E.2d 920 (1977). "[A] contempt is considered civil when the punishment is wholly remedial, serves only the purposes of complainant, and......
-
9 Contempt
...162 (1865)]. It is remedial and contemnor may be imprisoned only until he\she performs act or agrees to adhere to order [Ensley v. Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 238 SE2d 920 (1977); [Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461, 510 SE2d 810 (1999)]. It is said that contemnor has the key to the jailhouse door si......
-
9 Contempt
...162 (1865)]. It is remedial and contemnor may be imprisoned only until he\she performs act or agrees to adhere to order [Ensley v. Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 238 SE2d 920 (1977); [Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461, 510 SE2d 810 (1999)]. It is said that contemnor has the key to the jailhouse door si......
-
Making parents pay: interstate child support enforcement after United States v. Lopez.
...court] violates [state] prohibitions against imprisonment for debt has largely been unsuccessful"). (355) See, e.g., Ensley v. Ensley, 238 S.E.2d 920, 922 (Ga. 1977). (356) See Lewis, supra note 5, at 29A; see also supra note 266 and accompanying text (describing the ease with which nonsupp......
-
9 Contempt
...162 (1865)]. It is remedial and contemnor may be imprisoned only until he\she performs act or agrees to adhere to order [Ensley v. Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 238 SE2d 920 (1977); [Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461, 510 SE2d 810 (1999)]. It is said that contemnor has the key to the jailhouse door si......