Hooker v. Hooker, 44649
| Decision Date | 18 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 44649,44649 |
| Citation | 205 So.2d 276 |
| Parties | Gladney HOOKER v. Mrs. Mary Frances HOOKER. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Boudie A. Jaggers, Pontotoc, for appellant.
Doty & Thomas, Pontotoc, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Chancery Court of Pontotoc County denying the petition of Gladney Hooker, appellant, to modify and earlier coercive decree finding him in contempt of court for failure to make alimony and child support payments, and ordering his imprisonment unless certain payments were made. Since the undisputed evidence showed that after the earlier contempt decree appellant suffered financial reverses which rendered him wholly unable to comply with it, we reverse and remand.
In 1960 Mrs. Mary Frances Hooker, appellee, obtained a divorce from Gladney Hooker, with an award of permanent alimony and support for their one child of $300 per month. On March 2, 1966, she filed a petition for citation of contempt of court against her former husband. It averred that in 1964 the chancery court had found defendant in contempt, that he had made practically none of the payments awarded to her, and asked for a coercive decree and a judgment for the arrearage.
On March 18, 1966, the court, after a hearing, found Hooker in contempt because of his failure to pay the accrued sum of $14,225.94, rendered judgment against him for that amount, and sentenced him to be confined in the county jail for 180 days. He was afforded the opportunity to purge himself of such contempt by paying $1,000 before April 18, with confinement to be stayed for an additional thirty days, and further payments of $1,000 on May 18 and June 18 under the same condition. No appeal was taken from this decree of March 18. This record does not contain the evidence taken at the hearing prior to that decree.
On May 24, 1966, Gladney Hooker filed a petition for modification of the decree of March 18. He arerred that on March 28, 1966, ten days after he had been found in contempt and sentenced, a bank foreclosed and sold the last of his property nd business holdings; that he had enrolled judgments against him in the approximate amount of $75,000; that he was destitute and utterly unable to make the required payments; that he had lost his gasoline and oil dealerships among other businesses; and that his only means of earning a living was by day labor at a modest wage. Mrs. Hooker's answer admitted that judgments had been entered against appellant but denied his allegations of inability to pay.
At the hearing on October 4, 1966, Hooker testified that his sister had paid the first $1,000 due on April 18, but that she was unable to help him any further. After the decree of March 18 he was in the recapping business for only ten days. He had thought that he had found someone who would help finance his business, but after the contempt decree, this person refused. On March 28 the bank 'sold everything that I had of any way in the world of making a living. * * *' Hooker stated that he had not wilfully refused to pay the judgment, and had not thrown away or dissipated any funds. He admitted that at one time he had had a fairly successful business.
Appellant's counsel offered in evidence a certified copy of excerpts from the judgment rolls of Pontotoc County, which reflected enrolled judgments against appellant aggregating $87,005.66. These judgments were rendered in 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1966. The chancery court sustained an objection to this evidence on the erroneous ground that it was not relevant to the proceedings to modify the former decree. It had probative value on the issue of appellant's existing financial ability to make the payments ordered by the court. However, the judgment rolls could have been authenticated in a more direct way.
It is manifest from the record that appellant's financial situation made it impossible for him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. James, 97-CA-00242 COA
...he had complied with the decree or that it was impossible to fully comply with the decree. Gregg, 587 So.2d at 932; See Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276, 278 (Miss. 1967) ("husband may not petition for modification of the original decree without showing either that he has performed it or tha......
-
Clements v. Young, 55153
...v. Redding, 167 Miss. 780, 150 So. 776 (1933). Such a showing must be made with particularity and not in general terms. Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276, 278 (Miss.1967). Jimmy Clements' showing is wholly inadequate. In his written response to the motion for contempt, which he filed October ......
-
Morreale v. Morreale
...v. Redding, 167 Miss. 780, 150 So. 776 (1933). Such a showing must be made with particularity and not in general terms. Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276, 278 (Miss.1967). Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 271 (Miss.1985). Martin claims that the amount for which the future interest was sold w......
-
Howard v. Howard, 2003-CA-01129-COA.
...to pay, but his evidence must be made with particularity and not in general terms." Bailey, 724 So.2d at 337 (citing Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276, 278 (Miss.1967)). Further, this Court has confirmed that the evidence presented must be A husband is required to show what his earnings, his ......