Ingle v. Ingle
2013 Ark. App. 660
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Sherry and William “Billy” Ingle divorced in August 2011; their decree incorporated a stipulated property-settlement agreement that awarded Billy three gold five-dollar coins (family heirlooms).
- Billy alleged Sherry refused to turn over the three coins and filed a contempt petition in October 2011 after she barred him from entering her property to retrieve his items.
- At the contempt hearing, Sherry conceded she prevented Billy from collecting property but claimed she only had two coins and that the agreement’s description of the coins was indefinite.
- The circuit court found Billy more credible, held Sherry in civil contempt, and ordered her to return the three coins or pay $20,000 by a set date, with jail as coercive alternative for noncompliance.
- Sherry appealed, arguing (1) the property-settlement description was too indefinite to enforce and (2) she lacked the ability to return the specific coins (and thus to comply).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the property-settlement provision was too indefinite to support a contempt finding | Sherry: description of the gold coins was not sufficiently definite to require compliance | Billy: agreement language was clear; Sherry had counsel and could have sought more specificity | Court: Agreement was sufficiently definite; finding of contempt not clearly against preponderance of evidence |
| Whether Sherry’s inability to produce the specific three coins precluded contempt | Sherry: she did not possess the particular three coins and thus could not comply | Billy: even if the exact coins were not produced, Sherry did not claim inability to pay the $20,000 alternative | Court: Contempt proper because Sherry did not show inability to pay; the court may coerce compliance where contemnor has means |
| Whether the circuit court erred in credibility determinations | Sherry: the court wrongly credited Billy over her | Billy: court is entitled to weigh credibility, and it found Billy more credible | Court: appellate court defers to trial judge’s credibility findings; no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Doss v. Miller, 377 S.W.3d 348 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishes criminal and civil contempt; civil contempt coerces compliance)
- Applegate v. Applegate, 275 S.W.3d 682 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008) (civil-contempt standard; court orders must be definite and clear to support contempt)
- Aswell v. Aswell, 195 S.W.3d 365 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) (court may not impose civil contempt where contemnor lacks ability to comply)
- Griffith v. Griffith, 283 S.W.2d 340 (Ark. 1955) (imprisonment for contempt inappropriate where person lacks pecuniary ability to comply or is incapacitated)