253 So. 3d 357
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- English and Davenport divorced; chancellor awarded English lump-sum alimony of $1,515,914.33 to be paid in 180 monthly installments (~$8,421.75), largely reflecting business interests divided in the divorce.
- English repeatedly failed to make alimony payments across multiple periods (2012–2016), resulting in several contempt proceedings and judgments for arrearages; some arrears were satisfied by sales of property.
- After a March 2015 contempt petition and a three-day hearing, the chancellor found English in contempt, denied her request to modify the alimony award, and entered a judgment for about $114,000.
- The chancellor ordered staged payments of $50,000 on March 1, 2016 and June 1, 2016, with incarceration threatened for failure to pay; English appealed and sought emergency stays related to an arrest warrant.
- The chancery court’s contempt findings were affirmed on appeal; the court held there was substantial credible evidence that English failed to prove inability to pay and that challenges to incarceration based on present inability must be raised in the trial court at enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (English) | Defendant's Argument (Davenport) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether English rebutted a prima facie contempt showing by proving present inability to pay alimony | English: she was unable to satisfy the lump-sum alimony and therefore should not be held in contempt | Davenport: English failed to prove inability to pay with particularity and spent lavishly instead of contributing to alimony | Court: Chancellor’s finding that English did not prove inability to pay was supported by substantial credible evidence; affirmed |
| Whether inability to pay prevents incarceration for civil contempt at time of order enforcement | English: inability to pay $50,000 should bar incarceration and Article 3 § 30 (no imprisonment for debt) applies | Davenport: constitutional prohibition does not bar imprisonment for alimony nonpayment under existing precedent | Court: Inability-to-pay is a continuing defense to incarceration but must be proved at time of enforcement in chancery court; constitutional challenge to incarceration not decided on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 233 So.3d 797 (Miss. 2017) (appellate standard and proof required to rebut contempt for nonpayment)
- Doyle v. Doyle, 55 So.3d 1097 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (defendant may rebut contempt by proving inability to pay)
- Lane v. Lane, 850 So.2d 122 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (criteria for proving inability to pay: earn all possible, live economically, apply surplus to obligation)
- Felder v. Felder's Estate, 13 So.2d 823 (Miss. 1943) (imprisonment for nonpayment of alimony is not imprisonment for debt under state constitution)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 57 So.2d 163 (Miss. 1952) (court’s power to imprison for civil contempt depends on contemnor’s present ability to comply)
- Davenport v. Davenport, 156 So.3d 231 (Miss. 2014) (prior appeal affirming valuation, equitable distribution, and lump-sum alimony award)