Riley v. Riley, 2015–CA–00054–COA.

• Decision Date: 09 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. 2015–CA–00054–COA.,2015–CA–00054–COA.
• Citation: 196 So.3d 1159
• Parties: John Mark RILEY, Jr., Appellant v. Betty Merandy Russell RILEY, Appellee.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

196 So.3d 1159

John Mark RILEY, Jr., Appellant

v.Betty Merandy Russell RILEY, Appellee.

No. 2015–CA–00054–COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

Aug. 9, 2016.

Joseph Preston Durr, Cheli Kellems Durr, W. Brady Kellems, attorneys for appellant.

Christopher Randall Purdum, attorney for appellee.

EN BANC.

JAMES, J., for the Court:

¶ 1. John Mark Riley Jr. appeals from the trial court's order granting, in part, Betty Merandy Russell Riley's petition for contempt and other relief. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. John and Betty were married on April 5, 1996. Four children were born to the marriage. The parties were divorced on July 24, 2006. The judgment of divorce incorporated and ratified a child-custody, child-support, and property-settlement agreement that had been entered into by the parties. On January 3, 2012, the parties entered into an agreed order of modification.

¶ 3. On July 1, 2014, Betty filed a petition for contempt and other relief claiming that John was in contempt of the agreed order of modification by failing to provide health insurance for their four minor children. Betty also claimed that John was in contempt for failing to pay his portion of the four minor children's private-school tuition to Prentiss Christian School. Betty also sought reimbursement for certain medical expenses and extracurricular-activity expenses of the children. On September 15, 2014, John filed an answer and petition for modification and contempt. A hearing was held on November 17, 2014.

¶ 4. After considering all the evidence and testimony that had been presented, as well as arguments of counsel, the trial court found John to be in open and willful contempt of the agreed order of modification. The trial court found that Betty had paid $30,300.40 for their children's tuition at Prentiss Christian School. The trial court determined that John had not paid any tuition whatsoever for their children. The trial court ordered John to pay $15,150.20, representing half of the tuition payments Betty had paid.

¶ 5. The trial court also found that John failed to provide health insurance for the children as required by the agreed order of modification. The trial court ordered John to provide the same health insurance for the children that had been provided while he was at his former employment. The trial court denied Betty's claims against John for the children's unpaid medical bills and extracurricular-activity costs. The trial court dismissed John's petition for modification and contempt.¹

¶ 6. The trial court also ordered John to pay $2,000 in attorney's fees “for the necessity of [Betty] filing [her contempt] action.” The trial court ordered John to be incarcerated in the county jail until he purged himself of his contempt by paying the sum of $17,150.20 and providing health insurance for the children.

¶ 7. John appeals from the trial court's order raising two issues for this Court's review: (1) whether the trial court erred in finding John in open and willful contempt for his failure to pay his children's private-school tuition; and (2) whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Betty.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8. “The scope of review in domestic cases is limited.” Bounds v. Bounds, 935 So.2d 407, 410 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2006). This Court will not reverse the finding of the trial court unless it abused its discretion, was manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard. Id. (citing Denson v. George, 642 So.2d 909, 913 (Miss.1994) ).

¶ 9. “Contempt matters are committed to the substantial discretion of the trial court which, by institutional circumstance and both temporal and visual proximity, is infinitely more competent to decide the matter than are we.” Williamson v. Williamson, 81 So.3d 262, 266 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Morreale v. Morreale, 646 So.2d 1264, 1267 (Miss.1994) ). “Contempt is to be determined upon the facts of an individual case and is a matter for the trier of fact.” Id. at 266–67 (¶ 11) (citing Milam v. Milam, 509 So.2d 864, 866 (Miss.1987) ). “This Court will not reverse a contempt citation where the [trial court's] findings are supported by substantial credible evidence.” Witters v. Witters, 864 So.2d 999, 1004 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Varner v. Varner, 666 So.2d 493, 496 (Miss.1995) ).

DISCUSSION

I. Whether the trial court erred in finding John in contempt for failure to pay for his children's private-school tuition.

¶ 10. John argues the trial court erred in finding him in contempt for failure to pay for his children's private-school tuition. Specifically, John argues that a condition precedent of the agreed order of modification was not met because there was no evidence presented that the children chose to go to Prentiss Christian School.

¶ 11. The following portion of the agreed order of modification outlined John and Betty's obligations relating to their children's private-school enrollment and tuition:

In August of 2012, if the four minor children of the parties choose to attend Prentiss Christian School in Prentiss, Mississippi, the minor children shall be enrolled by Father, listed under Father's account at the school. Mother shall be responsible for one-third of the tuition and other fees associated therewith, and Father shall be responsible for one-third of the tuition and other fees associated therewith. Candy Riley shall be responsible for one-third of the tuition and other fees associated therewith for her children. In the event of a divorce of Candy and John Mark Riley, then John and [Betty] will split costs of the four kids that they have together.

¶ 12. The agreed order included a nonparty, Candy Riley, who is John's current wife. The agreed order contemplated that after the children were all enrolled under a single account, Candy would pay the remaining one-third of the children's tuition because she had two children, who were also attending Prentiss Christian School. This arrangement was to be financially beneficial to John, Candy, and Betty. Evidence presented at the hearing showed that Candy, John, and Betty would be able to receive a discounted group tuition rate by John and Betty's four children and John's two stepchildren with Candy all being listed under a single account.

¶ 13. Betty testified that John was the only individual who had the authority to list all six children under a single account under his name due to his relationship to the children as their father and stepfather. Candy testified that she withdrew her children from Prentiss Christian School before the 2012–2013 school year.

¶ 14. John never enrolled his two stepchildren and four children with Betty and listed them on his account to obtain the discounted group tuition rate. John failed to comply with the agreed order of modification by not enrolling his and Betty's children and listing them under his account. Furthermore, evidence was presented that John did not pay any amount of tuition for his four children with Betty. Because John's wife, Candy, withdrew her children from Prentiss Christian School before the 2012–2013 school year, she did not make any contribution to the tuition payments either.

¶ 15. The trial court found that the children had chosen to go to Prentiss Christian School because Betty testified that her and John's children had attended Prentiss Christian School since 2010. Therefore, John's argument about the condition precedent not being met because the children had not chosen to attend the school is without merit.

¶ 16. The trial court found that John was responsible for one-half the tuition costs that had been paid by Betty, rather than one-third, because Candy's two children were withdrawn from the school prior to the 2012–2013 school year. Accordingly, the trial court ordered John to pay $15,150.20 to Betty, representing one-half of the tuition payments that she had paid for her and John's four children to attend the school.

¶ 17. “It is well settled that [trial courts] are afforded wide latitude in fashioning equitable remedies in domestic relations matters.” Finch v. Finch, 137 So.3d 227, 232 (¶ 10) (Miss.2014). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding John in contempt for failing to pay for his children's private-school tuition and ordering him to pay one-half of the tuition that Betty had paid. The trial court fashioned an equitable remedy by ordering John to pay one-half of the tuition costs rather than one-third as mentioned in the agreed order of modification. Certainly this remedy avoided an inequitable result, because John was in contempt by not enrolling his children and listing them under his account; and only Betty had paid for their children's tuition. This assignment of error is without merit.

II. Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Betty.

¶ 18. John argues that the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to Betty because there was no proof of Betty's attorney's fees being presented at the hearing.

¶ 19. Attorney's fees are awarded to make the plaintiff whole in contempt actions. Wilson v. Stewart, 171 So.3d 522, 529 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App.2014) (citing Rogers v. Rogers, 662 So.2d 1111, 1116 (Miss.1995) ). “When a party is held in contempt for violating a valid judgment of the court, then attorney's fees should be awarded to the party that has been forced to seek the court's enforcement of its own judgment.” Id. (quoting Bounds, 935 So.2d at 412 (¶ 18) ).

¶ 20. In this contempt action, the trial court determined that an award of $2,000 in attorney's fees was reasonable based on the pleadings that had been filed and a one-day hearing. Mississippi Code Annotated section 9–1–41 (Rev.2014) provides:

In any action in which a court is authorized to award reasonable attorneys' fees, the court shall not require the party seeking such fees to put on proof as to the reasonableness of the amount sought, but shall make the award based on the information already before it

...