Janssen v. Janssen
96 So. 3d 23
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Elizabeth Janssen filed for divorce from Gregory Janssen in 2000; chancery court issued a 2006 division awarding E. Jane personal Walker heirlooms still in the marital home.
- Greg later resided in the home; E. Jane sought to retrieve heirlooms and was denied access.
- Contempt proceedings were filed beginning in 2007; multiple citations followed as items remained unavailable.
- Chancery court found Greg in contempt in 2009 and limited access; replacement value and attorneys’ fees were awarded to E. Jane.
- In 2010 the court imposed 30 days’ incarceration and ordered replacement value ($9,748.98) and attorneys’ fees ($5,761.56); on appeal the judgment was affirmed.
- Dissent argues the contempt finding and punishment were abusive given Greg’s health, possible Katrina destruction of items, and impossibility defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancellor abused discretion in finding contempt | Janssen contends Greg willfully blocked retrieval of heirlooms | Janssen argues noncompliance with order justified contempt | No abuse of discretion; contempt upheld |
| Whether attorneys’ fees were excessive | E. Jane seeks recovery for fees incurred during contempt proceedings | Greg contends fees covered unrelated work | Fees properly awarded; waiver issue moot for appeal |
| Whether replacement value award was supported by credible evidence | Items valued by E. Jane; Greg offered no contradicting evidence | No independent valuation provided | Credible evidence supported replacement value award |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. Day, 965 So.2d 749 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (contempt standard; abuse of discretion review)
- Evans v. Evans, 75 So.3d 1083 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (contempt evidenced by prima facie noncompliance)
- McIntosh v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 886 So.2d 721 (Miss.2004) (prima facie evidence of contempt and due process safeguards)
- Jurney v. Jurney, 921 So.2d 372 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (fee recovery for noncompliance; purpose of fees)
- Common v. Common, 42 So.3d 59 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (waiver of issues on appeal; fee statements)
- Cox v. Cox, 61 So.3d 927 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (evidence considered for value of property; chancellor not required to supply evidence)