Catt v. Catt
2014 Ark. App. 616
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Divorce decree (Sept 19, 2012) awarded Donna alimony of $1500/month and ordered tax returns for 2010 and 2011 to be filed within 60 days.
- Donna filed a contempt petition four months after the decree alleging nonpayment of alimony and failure to file tax returns; first contempt ruling followed, with $13,796.94 owed and 60 days in jail (purgeable on payment).
- August 22, 2013 petition alleged ongoing alimony arrearage and tax-return failure; Jerry remained in jail and sought counsel; hearing reset for Jan 2, 2014.
- January 2, 2014 hearing occurred; Jerry admitted the alimony obligation and tax-return duties, claimed lack of funds, and testified about finances and farming history.
- Trial court found willful contempt, awarded $13,796.94 for alimony through Jan 2014, $1300 in contempt-related attorney’s fees, and ordered 120 days in jail (60 days immediate, remainder if tax returns not filed).
- Jerry obtained counsel post-hearing; he appealed asserting willful contempt improper and that 120 days was excessive; he also argued the January 2 hearing was premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt was willful and 120 days appropriate | Catt contends willful contempt; ability to pay does not excuse willfulness, and 120 days serves coercive purpose. | Catt argues lack of ability to pay means no imprisonment; extensive credibility issues on his finances. | Affirmed; contempt found willful; 120 days not excessive given prior contempt and coercive purpose. |
| Whether the January 2, 2014 hearing was premature | Catt alleges hearing occurred before responsive pleading period expired. | Catt failed to preserve timing objections; appeared and raised no timely objection; motion filed after hearing. | Affirmed; issues waived due to pro se appearances and failure to timely object. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Ward, 434 S.W.3d 923 (Ark. App. 2014) (civil contempt permits imprisonment to coerce compliance when able to pay)
- Ivy v. Keith, 351 Ark. 269 (Ark. 2002) (lack of ability to pay defeats imprisonment for contempt)
- Griffith v. Griffith, 283 S.W.2d 340 (Ark. 1955) (imprisonment proper only if defendant has means to comply)
- Erwin v. Frost, 2014 Ark. App. 51 (Ark. App. 2014) (credibility and factual disputes within fact-finder's province)
- Ivy v. Keith, 92 S.W.3d 671 (Ark. 2002) (supporting lack of ability to pay as defense to imprisonment)