Darian A. Pierce v. James "Sam" Sorrells
2022-CP-01290-COA
Miss. Ct. App.Jan 2, 2024Background
- Darian Pierce and James Sorrells entered into an agreed judgment following mediation, requiring Pierce to pay Sorrells $10,500 in monthly installments of $300, with execution suspended as long as payments were timely.
- Pierce initially made 12 monthly payments but fell behind in 2022, after which Sorrells petitioned the court for contempt, unsealing the judgment, entry of a lump sum judgment, and sanctions.
- Pierce was personally served with an order for a contempt hearing but did not appear; the court found him in contempt and ordered him incarcerated (in abeyance) unless the balance was paid, in addition to attorney's fees.
- Pierce filed a motion to set aside, asserting improper service, that he was current on payments by the time of the hearing, and citing inability to pay due to health issues.
- At the hearing on his motion, Pierce was not allowed to present evidence or testify, and his motions were denied while Sorrells was awarded additional attorney's fees.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals found procedural due process was violated, affirmed proper service, reversed the contempt incarceration finding, and remanded for a proper hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Pierce’s Argument | Sorrells’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper service of process | Not properly served for hearing | Proof of personal service provided | Service was proper |
| Contempt for missed payments | Was current on payments by hearing, delay due to health | Payments were late, breach of order | Trial court deprived Pierce of due process by refusing to let him present defense; remanded for a new hearing |
| Sanctions/Attorney's fees | Opposed, said responses used protected/confidential info | Sought fees for having to respond to groundless pleadings | Remanded; assessment of fees improper without full hearing |
| Incarceration for contempt for failing to pay | Inability to pay due to illness, not willful | Payments not made timely, asked for enforcement by contempt | Incarceration for nonpayment of ordinary debt not allowed (reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nichols, 749 So. 2d 68 (Miss. 1999) (imprisonment for nonpayment of ordinary civil debt is prohibited; contempt not proper mechanism for collection)
- BB Buggies Inc. v. Leon, 150 So. 3d 90 (Miss. 2014) (standard for setting aside default judgment favors hearing the merits)
- Braswell v. Braswell, 336 So. 3d 1121 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (inability to pay can be a defense to contempt, must be proven in detail)
- Leavitt v. Carter, 178 So. 3d 334 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (due process requires a full hearing before deprivation of rights)