Roger Dale Latham v. Michele Ann Latham, 261 So. 3d 1110

Michele and Roger Latham divorced in Feb. 2016; Michele later filed a petition for contempt alleging Roger violated terms of the marital dissolution agreement incorporated into the divorce decree.
Michele sought civil and criminal contempt; Roger was served under M.R.C.P. 81, moved for a continuance, then failed to appear at the June 12, 2017 hearing.
After evidence and testimony, the chancellor found Roger in both civil and constructive (indirect) criminal contempt and ordered sanctions including $2,500 in attorneys’ fees and 72 hours incarceration.
On appeal, Roger did not challenge guilt but argued the chancellor should have recused himself sua sponte before adjudicating constructive criminal contempt.
The Mississippi Supreme Court held Roger waived the recusal claim by failing to request recusal or otherwise object at the trial level and affirmed; the Court also declined Michelle’s belated appellate request for half the trial attorney fees because she failed to file a Rule 27 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the chancellor erred by not recusing himself before finding Roger in constructive criminal contempt	Michele: No recusal required; proceedings were properly conducted and she sought criminal sanction	Roger: Chancellor should have recused sua sponte for constructive criminal contempt (due-process concern)	Waived — Roger failed to move for recusal or object at trial; appellate claim forfeited
Whether constructive criminal contempt required notice/recusal sua sponte	Michele: Petition and hearing provided adequate notice; criminal punishment was sought	Roger: Constructive criminal contempt requires judge recusal and specific notice of criminal charges	Court: Generally requires notice and safeguards, but recusal is not mandatory absent judge’s substantial personal involvement; here issue waived
Whether appellate attorney’s fees should be awarded to Michele	Michele: Requests one-half of trial fees ($1,250) in brief	Roger: Implicitly opposes; no Rule 27 motion filed	Denied — Michele failed to file a Rule 27 motion with affidavits/time records; request not considered

Dennis v. Dennis, 824 So.2d 604 (Miss. 2002) (contempt-review principles and waiver for unpreserved objections)
Tubwell v. Grant, 760 So.2d 687 (Miss. 2000) (failure to seek recusal at trial waives appellate recusal claim)
Rice v. State, 134 So.3d 292 (Miss. 2014) (failure to seek recusal is implied consent to the judge presiding)
In re Hampton, 919 So.2d 949 (Miss. 2006) (direct-contempt context; failure to move for recusal results in waiver)
Corr v. State, 97 So.3d 1211 (Miss. 2012) (constructive contempt may require recusal when judge has substantial personal involvement)
Purvis v. Purvis, 657 So.2d 794 (Miss. 1994) (distinguishing civil and criminal contempt; due-process safeguards for constructive contempt)
In re McDonald, 98 So.3d 1040 (Miss. 2012) (chancellor required to recuse and issue Rule 81 summons for constructive criminal contempt under certain circumstances)
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. McGill, 890 So.2d 859 (Miss. 2004) (recusal required where trial judge had substantial personal involvement in prosecution of contempt)