Keith Patrick Smith v. Mary Bryant Smith
203 So. 3d 1150
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Keith and Mary Smith divorced by final judgment entered Jan. 22, 2003; Chancellor awarded Mary $116,000 (one-third of Keith’s medical practice) but stayed execution for three years (until Jan. 22, 2006) with no interest during the stay.
- Mary later sought modification of alimony and filed a June 1, 2010 motion for citation for contempt alleging Keith had refused to pay the $116,000; she also asked for a life-insurance requirement and periodic payments.
- Keith admitted nonpayment but moved to dismiss, arguing the seven-year statute of limitations to enforce the monetary judgment expired on Jan. 22, 2013 (seven years from the end of the stay), and that Mary had not properly tolled or renewed the judgment.
- Chancellor Davis held that because execution was stayed until Jan. 22, 2006, the seven-year limitations period ran from that date and thus Mary’s June 1, 2010 motion was timely; he calculated accrued interest and entered a new judgment reflecting $167,968.
- The chancellor declined to hold Keith in contempt because the original judgment imposed no specific payment deadline and denied Mary’s request to change the form of payment (lump sum to periodic payments) as time-barred under post-judgment relief rules.
- Keith appealed, arguing the statute of limitations barred Mary’s enforcement and that her motion did not toll or renew the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Mary’s Argument | Keith’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations barred enforcement of $116,000 judgment | Her June 1, 2010 contempt/modification motion was an action founded on the judgment and was filed within the seven-year period (or tolled during proceedings), so enforcement was timely | The motion did not renew, execute, or properly toll the judgment; the seven-year period expired Jan. 22, 2013 and Mary has no enforceable claim | Court affirmed: at the time Mary filed on June 1, 2010 the statute of limitations had not expired, so her motion was not barred |
| Whether Mary’s motion tolled the statute of limitations | The filing tolled enforcement as an action founded on the judgment and preserved Mary’s rights while adjudication proceeded | The motion sought other relief and did not constitute execution/renewal sufficient to toll limitations | Court confined ruling to the posture presented: motion was not barred when filed; did not broadly decide future hypothetical tolling questions |
| Whether chancellor should hold Keith in contempt for nonpayment | Mary requested contempt because Keith willfully refused to pay the judgment | Keith argued no contempt: original judgment imposed no payment date and enforcement avenue expired or wasn’t properly invoked | Court refused contempt: no specific payment deadline in original judgment and Mary had not yet exercised collection remedies |
| Whether the court could modify the payment method of the original judgment | Mary sought conversion to periodic payments and life insurance security until paid | Keith opposed modification and argued rule/time limits for altering final judgments barred change | Court denied modification: trial court lacked authority to change form of payment given applicable post-judgment time constraints |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Parker Tractor & Implement Co., 132 So. 3d 1032 (Miss. 2014) (statute-of-limitations issues reviewed de novo)
- Quality Diesel Serv. v. Tiger Drilling Co., 190 So. 3d 860 (Miss. 2016) (tolling of judgment enforcement when garnishment commenced while judgment still valid)
- In re Lewis, 110 So. 3d 811 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (writ-of-garnishment filed after limitations period was untimely)
- Kimbrough v. Wright, 97 So. 2d 362 (Miss. 1957) (successive suits on an underlying judgment stop the running of the statute of limitations)
- Street v. Smith, 37 So. 837 (Miss. 1905) (historical authority on timing and enforcement of judgments)