296 So.3d 254
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Remy Bozant and Hang M. Nguyen divorced Oct. 6, 2016; their Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) allocated personal income-tax liabilities for 2013–2015: Wife 75% / Husband 25%. 2015 returns were to be filed jointly; CPA fees for 2015 split 50/50.
- After the divorce, Kat paid the entire 2015 tax liability and $1,500 to the CPA; she also entered an IRS installment agreement (paying $3,000/month) to resolve 2013–2014 liabilities. Remy made no payments on any of these obligations.
- Kat petitioned for contempt (July 2018) seeking Remy’s 25% share for 2013–2015 and his 50% share of the 2015 tax-preparation fee; she also sought incarceration until he purged. Remy counterclaimed and asserted defenses including inability to pay, unclean hands, and contribution.
- The chancery court found Remy in willful civil contempt, ordered payment of the accumulated tax debt, the CPA fee, and $6,332.14 in attorney’s fees to Kat, with incarceration if he failed to pay. It dismissed Remy’s counterclaims with prejudice.
- On appeal, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed contempt and attorney’s fees as to the 2015 tax debt and CPA fee, but reversed and remanded as to contempt for 2013–2014 taxes because Kat had not yet paid Remy’s alleged share (so he had not been compelled to “carry the full load”).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nguyen) | Defendant's Argument (Bozant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Remy can be held in contempt for 2013–2014 tax liabilities | Kat sought Remy’s 25% share and immediate payment to her because she arranged an IRS payment plan and was paying the debt | Remy argued contribution requires Kat first pay the debt; she hadn’t paid Remy’s share, so he couldn’t be in contempt | Reversed as to 2013–2014: contempt improper because Kat had not yet been forced to pay Remy’s share (no contribution claim ripe) |
| Whether Remy is in contempt for 2015 taxes and 2015 CPA fee | Kat paid all 2015 taxes and the CPA fee and sought Remy’s 25% and 50% shares | Remy denied liability / raised defenses but presented no payment or offsets | Affirmed: Remy in contempt for 2015 tax share and 50% of CPA fee; ordered to pay Kat |
| Adequacy of Remy’s inability-to-pay defense | N/A (Kat sought contempt enforcement) | Remy asserted inability to pay (bankruptcy earlier, limited income) | Affirmed denial: Remy failed to prove inability to pay with particularity; court found lifestyle expenditures inconsistent with inability claim |
| Award of attorney’s fees to Kat for enforcing the PSA | Fees are necessary to make plaintiff whole when contemnor violates judgment | Remy objected to paying fees but did not contest reasonableness at trial | Affirmed: chancery court reasonably awarded $6,332.14 for fees incurred enforcing the PSA |
| Remy’s counterclaims and unclean-hands defense | N/A | Remy alleged Kat had unclean hands (late payments, unpaid joint-account obligations, withheld $5,000) | Affirmed dismissal: court credited Kat’s steps (2015 payment, IRS plan, evidence of $5,000 cash) and rejected unclean-hands defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Campbell Roofing & Metal Works Inc, 352 So. 2d 1316 (Miss. 1977) (doctrine of contribution: co-liable parties must share burden; one compelled to pay more may seek contribution)
- Varner v. Varner, 666 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 1995) (burden on contemnor to prove inability to pay with particularity)
- Hanshaw v. Hanshaw, 55 So. 3d 143 (Miss. 2011) (civil contempt enforces private party’s rights or compels compliance)
- Lewis v. Pagel, 172 So. 3d 162 (Miss. 2015) (contempt requires willful, deliberate disregard of a court order)
- Gwathney v. Gwathney, 208 So. 3d 1087 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review in domestic-relations cases: chancellor’s findings not disturbed unless manifestly wrong)
- Chism v. Chism, 285 So. 3d 656 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (primary purpose of civil contempt is to enforce compliance with court orders)
- Riley v. Riley, 196 So. 3d 1159 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (attorney’s fees awarded in contempt actions to make plaintiff whole)
- Witters v. Witters, 864 So. 2d 999 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate court will not reverse contempt citation if chancellor’s findings are supported by substantial credible evidence)