Switzer v. Switzer
| Decision Date | 05 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 54943,54943 |
| Parties | Danny Hall SWITZER v. Sharon J. SWITZER. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Marc E. Brand, Hobbs & Brand, Jackson, for appellant.
David W. Dreher, Collins & Dreher, Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.
Danny Hall Switzer has been found in violation of certain financial provisions of a property settlement agreement incorporated into a final decree of divorce entered by the Chancery Court of Rankin County, Mississippi, adjudged in contempt, and committed to the custody of the sheriff until he purge himself. He appeals to this Court, arguing that such an incorporated property settlement agreement is not enforceable by contempt proceedings and, in the alternative, that the agreement is too vaguely worded to support an adjudication of contempt. For the reasons set forth below, we reject Switzer's points and affirm.
Danny Hall Switzer (hereinafter "Danny") and Sharon J. Switzer (hereinafter "Sharon") were married on October 5, 1976. At some point in 1981 they separated. No children were born of the marriage. In due course thereafter the parties negotiated a property settlement agreement, obviously contemplating obtaining a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-2 (Supp.1984). At the time the parties owned a residence commonly designated by a street number as 303 Bay Road, Brandon, Rankin County, Mississippi. With respect to that residence, the parties provided in the agreement as follows:
HUSBAND and WIFE covenant and agree that HUSBAND shall have the exclusive use and occupancy of the said marital home with the understanding that WIFE shall be given a reasonable period of time from the execution of this Agreement to vacate herself from the premises. HUSBAND shall have the responsibility and obligation to pay the indebtedness on the property inclusive of principal, interest, taxes and insurance. [Emphasis added]
The agreement goes on to provide for various contingencies with respect to the residence. We have studied the agreement with some care. We find nothing in it which would relieve Danny of the obligation to pay the indebtedness secured by the residence so long as he resides there.
The agreement further provides that
The parties agree, stipulate, and consent that the provisions of this Agreement may be incorporated into any decree of divorce entered in the action pending in the Chancery Court of Rankin County, Mississippi, with prior consent of said court.
Thereafter, on August 26, 1982, In The Matter Of The Dissolution Of The Marriage Of Sharon J. Switzer and Danny Hall Switzer, Docket No. 20,605, the Chancery Court of Rankin County, Mississippi, entered its Final Decree Of Divorce which decree in pertinent part provided:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Sharon J. Switzer and Danny Hall Switzer be, and they are hereby, ordered and directed to perform all terms and conditions contained in the Agreement entered into by and between them and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and fully incorporated into this decree in words and figures.
The agreement attached to the decree as Exhibit "A" is that from which we have quoted above.
As fate would have it, Danny failed to make any payments on the house, which were in the amount of $488.97 per month. Notwithstanding, he continued to reside there.
On May 27, 1983, Sharon commenced the instant proceedings in which she sought an adjudication that Danny was in contempt of court for his violation of the property settlement agreement incorporated as it was into the final decree of divorce. The matter came on for hearing on June 6, 1983, before the Honorable Billy G. Bridges, Chancellor, whereupon the parties stipulated that Danny had continued to reside in the house through the middle of May of 1983, that he had made none of the monthly note payments with respect to the indebtedness secured by the home since September 1, 1982, and that the arrearage as of May 31, 1983, including costs incident to a then pending foreclosure was $5,128.30. The Chancellor found that Sharon was responsible for the June 1, 1983, payment in the amount of $488.97.
In this state of the record, the Chancellor entered his decree adjudging Danny Hall Switzer to be in wilful and contumacious contempt of court
for his being in arrears in the house payments and foreclosure charges in the sum of $5,128.30 on this date.
The Chancellor awarded Sharon attorneys fees in the amount of $350.00 plus court costs in the amount of $37.00 rendering a total sum due and owing from Danny in the amount of $5,515.30. The Chancellor thereupon ordered Danny Hall Switzer committed to the custody of the Sheriff of Rankin County, Mississippi, until such time as he should purge himself of his contempt by payment of the aforesaid sum of $5,515.30.
Danny has now perfected his appeal to this Court where the matter is ripe for review.
The first red herring we need lay to rest is that the property settlement agreement somehow remains only a contract and is not a part of the final decree of divorce subject to enforcement via contempt. That proposition is wrong as a matter of law and is certainly wrong when the particulars of this case are considered.
Our Irreconcilable Differences Divorce Act contemplates that the parties will negotiate a settlement of all matters, including a division of property and respective rights and responsibilities in relation thereto. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-2 (Supp.1984). The statute further contemplates that this property settlement agreement will be filed with the court before a final decree may be entered.
When the statute has been complied with, the custody, support, alimony and property settlement agreement becomes a part of the final decree for all legal intents and purposes. This is so, whether the agreement is copied verbatim into the text of the decree, whether it is attached as an exhibit and incorporated by reference, or whether it is simply on file with the clerk of the court. If the agreement is sufficient to comply with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sickler v. Sickler
...of Fifth Judicial District, 95 Idaho 404, 509 P.2d 1325 (1973) ; In re Marriage of Lenger, 336 N.W.2d 191 (Iowa 1983) ; Switzer v. Switzer, 460 So.2d 843 (Miss.1984) ; Cobb v. Cobb, 54 N.C.App. 230, 282 S.E.2d 591 (1981) ; Harris v. Harris, 58 Ohio St.2d 303, 390 N.E.2d 789 (1979) ; Sinaiko......
-
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
...be responsible for the remainder.15 Gutierrez v. Gutierrez , 153 So.3d 703, 713 (Miss. 2014).16 Id. at 713–14 (quoting Switzer v. Switzer , 460 So.2d 843, 846 (Miss. 1984) ).17 Gutierrez , 153 So.3d at 711.18 Id. at 712.19 Id.20 Id.21 Id. at 713.22 Id. (quoting Switzer , 460 So.2d at 846 ).......
-
Lewis v. Lewis
...may be incorporated in the decree, and such decree may be modified as other decrees for divorce.... 1 In Switzer v. Switzer, 460 So.2d 843 (Miss.1984) (Robertson, J.), this Court stated that when compliance with Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-2 has been met, the custody, support, alimony and prop......
-
Bell v. Bell
...entered by the court following contested proceedings. See, e.g., Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037, 1043 (Miss.1990); Switzer v. Switzer, 460 So.2d 843, 846 (Miss.1984). Co-existing with this view is the reality that such agreements are frequently the product of arms length bargaining and th......