167 So. 3d 245
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- DeSoto County Chancery Court found Vincent in civil contempt for overdue child support and for unpaid attorney’s fees.
- Joan petitioned for contempt on July 25, 2012; a September 4, 2012 order imposed $1,999.50 in attorney’s fees.
- An November 14, 2012 agreed order acknowledged arrears and added $1,500 in attorney’s fees for the contempt petition.
- A June 17, 2013 order found willful contempt for the September 2012 delinquency and ordered $3,125.78 in attorney’s fees; David was briefly incarcerated.
- A September 25, 2013 order denied reconsideration and awarded Joan $1,000 in additional attorney’s fees; the court’s judgments were ultimately affirmed on appeal.
- The appellate court affirms the contempt findings and fee awards, upholding the court’s discretionary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unclean-hands defense was properly rejected | Vincent argues Joan violated health-insurance card order | Joan had unclean hands due to not complying with prior order | No error; unclean-hands defense properly denied |
| Contempt finding and attorney’s fees for September 2012 delinquency | Earlier contempt findings duplicate issues; fees were improper | Contempt proper; fees justified to make Joan whole | Contempt affirmed and fees upheld |
| Incarceration for failure to pay fees | Incarceration was inappropriate given financial hardship | Courts may imprison for noncompliance until payment | Court had discretion to incarcerate until payment was made |
| Excessiveness of attorney’s fees and ability to pay | Fees excessive; Joan could pay her own | McKee factors not required where contempt proven; fees reasonable | No abuse of discretion; fees within reasonable scope and necessary for contempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Strain v. Strain, 847 So. 2d 276 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (contempt standard—willful disregard of court order)
- Bounds v. Bounds, 935 So.2d 407 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (attorney’s fees awarded to prevailing party in contempt)
- Elliott v. Rogers, 775 So.2d 1285 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (fees awarded for pursuing contempt action)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (McKee factors considered for attorney’s fees)
- Mount v. Mount, 624 So.2d 1001 (Miss. 1993) (no McKee factor list required when contemnor willfully violates order)
- Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037 (Miss. 1990) (inability to pay defense requires particularized proof)
- Henderson v. Henderson, 952 So.2d 273 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (attorney’s fees in contempt actions affirmed)
- Howard v. Howard, 968 So.2d 961 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (McKee analysis not always necessary in contempt)
- Yancey v. Yancey, 752 So.2d 1006 (Miss. 1999) (record-based review; cannot rely on pleadings alone)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 724 So.2d 335 (Miss. 1998) (clean-hands doctrine explained)
- Thigpen v. Kennedy, 238 So.2d 744 (Miss. 1970) (clean-hands doctrine applicable)