Deana Lee Davis v. Matthew Cary Davis
475 S.W.3d 177
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Marriage dissolved Aug. 19, 2011; Mother awarded sole physical custody of two adult children and Father ordered to pay $400/month child support, provide health insurance, split uncovered medical expenses, and contribute to college costs.
- Mother moved to enforce (Sept. 20, 2012) seeking sale of marital home proceeds, QDRO/accounting for IRA, money judgment for medical and college expenses, contempt, and child support modification; some counts were later dismissed/settled and trial proceeded on remaining claims.
- Trial resulted in an order (Sept. 27, 2013) directing an accounting/QDRO for the IRA and finding Father owed $55,570.14 for delinquent obligations (child support, medical, replacement insurance, and college expenses); Father was held in contempt but incarceration was suspended pending purge conditions.
- Court set purge conditions (transfer of proceeds, liquidation/transfer of IRA/stocks, pay balance or present a payment plan by Dec. 31, 2013); later amended to identify sale proceeds in escrow as available to purge and gave deadlines in 2014.
- Father filed a post-judgment motion arguing children were emancipated at 18 (first raised after trial) and that the court failed to find he had present ability to purge; Father posted an appeal bond but no commitment order or warrant was ever issued and he was never jailed.
- The Court of Appeals considered whether the contempt judgment was final and appealable and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the contempt order was never enforced by incarceration or warrant of commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Mother (Plaintiff) Argument | Father (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contempt judgment and order of commitment were appealable/final | Contempt order was valid and enforceable; judgment should stand | Contempt order and commitment were erroneous; court failed to find present ability to purge | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because contempt order was not enforced (no warrant or incarceration), so it remained interlocutory |
| Whether Father was in civil contempt for failing to pay medical and college expenses | Father willfully failed to comply with dissolution decree and owes specified sums | Children were emancipated at 18 (first raised post-trial), so Father owed no post-18 obligations | Court rejected emancipation argument as raised too late; but contempt order still interlocutory because unenforced |
| Whether court erred by failing to determine Father’s present ability to purge contempt | Court properly set purge conditions and identified escrow funds as available | Court failed to make explicit finding that Father has present ability to purge | Trial court later acknowledged escrow funds were available; but absence of incarceration/warrant prevented final appealability |
| Effect of posting supersedeas/appeal bond on appealability | Bond secures appeal and may affect enforcement | Bond does not render an unappealable contempt order appealable | Posting an appeal bond does not enforce a contempt order; it only stays enforcement, so appealability unchanged |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Crow and Gilmore, 103 S.W.3d 778 (Mo. banc 2003) (contempt order interlocutory until enforced by incarceration or warrant)
- Carothers v. Carothers, 337 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. banc 2011) (civil contempt final only when enforced; discusses enforcement timing)
- Lyons v. Sloop, 40 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. 2001) (burden shifts to alleged contemnor to prove inability to pay)
- Bruns v. Thomas, 919 S.W.2d 302 (Mo. App. 1996) (requirements for commitment order and recital of facts)
- Brown v. Brown, 670 S.W.2d 167 (Mo. App. 1984) (commitment order must state facts and purge conditions so contemnor knows how to free himself)
- Relaxation, Inc. v. RIS, Inc., 452 S.W.3d 743 (Mo. App. 2015) (appellate court must sua sponte address jurisdiction)
- Teefey v. Teefey, 533 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. banc 1976) (recognition that civil contempt judgments are appealable once final)