Hill v. Moree
| Decision Date | 24 July 1992 |
| Citation | 602 So.2d 903 |
| Parties | Forrest Jerry HILL v. Cynthia Hill MOREE. 2910128. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Stephen P. Bussman, Fort Payne, for appellant.
William Prendergast and Lois Brasfield, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Forrest Jerry Hill was found to be in contempt of court for failure to pay child support as ordered. Following an ore tenus proceeding, the trial court determined that each delinquency (244 consecutive weeks) "constitutes an act of contempt for each separate failure or omission." The trial court concluded that the arrearage totalled $24,661, but determined that Hill could purge himself from contempt by the payment of $12,330, which represented the amount the trial court determined that Hill "could have had the good faith understanding" that he owed. Hill was ordered to be confined to the county jail for 1,220 days, which represents 5 days for each separate finding of contempt. Hill's post-judgment motion was denied and he appeals.
On appeal, Hill does not challenge the finding of contempt. He affirms in his brief that "there was evidence which supported the trial court's finding of contempt and such a finding was not plainly and palpably wrong." Hill argues on appeal that he does not have the ability to pay the amount ordered, and that there was no evidence to show his ability to make such a payment. As such, he argues that the trial court erred in ordering him incarcerated because he lacked the present ability to pay.
The dispositive issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering Hill incarcerated if he failed to pay the arrearage amount to purge himself from the finding of contempt.
The inherent authority of a trial court to punish one for contempt lies in the interest of the court in protecting its dignity and demanding obedience to its decrees. Klingler v. White, 465 So.2d 405 (Ala.Civ.App.1984). Contempt cannot be found if failure to pay obligations is due to lack of means rather than contumacy. Davis v. Davis, 518 So.2d 156 (Ala.Civ.App.1987).
In our thorough and careful review of the record, we find nothing to indicate that Hill lacked the ability to pay each support obligation as it became due. To the contrary, when questioned whether he had been employed since the divorce, Hill responded "I've always been employed." Hill conceded that he had not paid the support obligation for about five years. He testified that he was not paying the support obligation in 1989 when he paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hollis v. State ex rel. Hollis
...but do not specifically address, the propriety of longer than five-day sentences for multiple findings of contempt. See Hill v. Moree, 602 So.2d 903 (Ala.Civ.App.1992), and Parcus v. Parcus, 615 So.2d 75 (Ala.Civ.App.1992), which affirm the trial courts. By implication, those cases could al......
-
Patterson v. Patterson
...(Ala.Civ.App.1993); Wright v. Wright, 630 So.2d 450 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Hill v. Frye, 603 So.2d 1073 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Hill v. Moree, 602 So.2d 903 (Ala.Civ.App.1992); Ex parte Cleburne County Board of Education, 545 So.2d 802 (Ala.Civ.App.1989); McKeever v. McKeever, 528 So.2d 856 (Ala.C......
-
Dolberry v. Dolberry
...court cited Chappel v. Esty, 655 So.2d 1011 (Ala.Civ.App.1995), Ex parte Boykin, 656 So.2d 821 (Ala.Civ.App.1994), and Hill v. Moree, 602 So.2d 903 (Ala.Civ.App.1992). The language in Ex parte Boykin, upon which the Smith decision relies, is merely dicta. In Ex parte Boykin, this court deni......
-
Smith v. Smith
...contempt power to coerce compliance with a lawful order of the court." 656 So.2d at 828 (citations omitted). See also Hill v. Moree, 602 So.2d 903, 904 (Ala.Civ.App.1992) ("The inherent authority of the trial court to punish one for contempt lies in the interest of the court in protecting i......