IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MITCHELL
491 P.3d 759
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2021Background
- Divorce decree (Apr 27, 2012) awarded Petitioner Joyce Mitchell a mobile home park (Four Seasons of Fun, LLC) but required Respondent Richard Mitchell to be paid 50% of net profit or a guaranteed $150,000 paid at closing; any sale under $700,000 required both parties' written agreement.
- Petitioner sold the park for $500,000; closing occurred in mid‑October 2016 but Respondent was not notified until November 17, 2016.
- Respondent obtained a TRO requiring Petitioner to deposit $150,000 into his counsel’s trust account; the trial court later sealed the case file with a gag order (Jan 10, 2017).
- Respondent sought enforcement and contempt; after hearings the trial court found Petitioner guilty of indirect contempt (Sept 17, 2018), awarded $150,000 plus interest, and taxed attorney fees and costs against Petitioner.
- Petitioner appealed, challenging disqualification of her original counsel, exclusion of evidence, sealing of the record, the contempt finding (willfulness), and attorney fees/interest calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mitchell) | Defendant's Argument (Richard Mitchell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disqualification of counsel / exclusion of evidence | Trial court erred by disqualifying original counsel and preventing counsel from testifying, which deprived her of evidence of good‑faith sale communications | Record silent as to reason; trial court acted within discretion | No reversible abuse of discretion; silent record presumes correctness of trial court action |
| Sealing of court file / gag order | Sealing and gag order improperly denied access to evidence and lacked docket entries | Court asserts seal was entered; parties had access; no timely challenge below | Seal order deficient under Open Records Act (no findings, not narrowly tailored) but appellate relief denied because Mitchell never sought correction below; admonition to trial court to follow ORA |
| Indirect contempt / willfulness | Sale was in good faith; Respondent had at least oblique notice and court erred finding willfulness | Petitioner failed to obtain written consent to sub‑$700K offer and failed to notify/pay Respondent at closing as Decree required; conduct was willful disobedience | Evidence amply supports trial court’s credibility determinations and contempt finding; affirmed |
| Attorney fees and interest | Fees improper due to hold‑harmless clause; interest calculation unspecified (pre/post judgment) | Court has statutory authority to award fees in post‑decree enforcement actions | Fee award upheld as discretionary under divorce statute; interest issue not preserved for appeal; no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- James v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 810 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1991) (trial court has broad discretion over admissibility and conduct of trial)
- Kerr v. Clary, 37 P.3d 841 (Okla. 2001) (standard of review in contempt proceedings; factual findings not reexamined on appeal)
- Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder, 467 P.2d 470 (Okla. 1970) (errors in evidence require reversal only if miscarriage of justice or substantial violation occurs)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (recognition of common‑law public right of access to judicial records)
- Davis v. Davis, 739 P.2d 1029 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987) (definition and elements of indirect contempt/willfulness)
- Wilson v. Still, 819 P.2d 714 (Okla. 1991) (issues not raised below generally cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
- Jernigan v. Jernigan, 138 P.3d 539 (Okla. 2006) (appellate courts decline review of issues not preserved in trial court)