Hooker v. Hooker, 44649
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | ETHRIDGE |
| Citation | 205 So.2d 276 |
| Parties | Gladney HOOKER v. Mrs. Mary Frances HOOKER. |
| Docket Number | No. 44649,44649 |
| Decision Date | 18 December 1967 |
Page 276
v.
Mrs. Mary Frances HOOKER.
Page 277
Boudie A. Jaggers, Pontotoc, for appellant.
Doty & Thomas, Pontotoc, for appellee.
ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice:
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McPhail v. McPhail, 2020-CA-00739-SCT
...claimed an inability to pay his child support, he failed to demonstrate with particularity his inability to do so. See Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276, 278 (Miss. 1967) (A parent may exonerate themself from failure to make child support payments because of their inability to pay, "but [this......
-
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 Jimmy Clements' showing is wholly inadequate. In his written response to the motion for contempt, which he filed October 28, 1982, Cle......
-
Morreale v. Morreale, s. 90-CA-00702
...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 Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 271 (Miss.1985). Martin claims that the amount for which the future interest was sold was far below ......
-
McPhail v. McPhail, 2020-CA-00739-SCT
...claimed an inability to pay his child support, he failed to demonstrate with particularity his inability to do so. See Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276, 278 (Miss. 1967) (A parent may exonerate themself from failure to make child support payments because of their inability to pay, "but [this......
-
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 Jimmy Clements' showing is wholly inadequate. In his written response to the motion for contempt, which he filed October 28, 1982, Cle......
-
Morreale v. Morreale, s. 90-CA-00702
...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 Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 271 (Miss.1985). Martin claims that the amount for which the future interest was sold was far below ......