Stephanie Elaine Dupree v. Patrick Ray Pafford
200 So. 3d 1092
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Stephanie Dupree and Patrick Pafford are unmarried parents; paternity, support, and visitation were established by a 2009 order.
- In 2014 the chancery court heard competing contempt motions and Patrick’s motion to modify custody.
- The chancellor denied Patrick’s custody modification and denied Stephanie’s contempt motion, but found Stephanie in contempt for violating discovery orders and for denying visitation.
- The court awarded Patrick approximately $16,000 in attorney’s fees against Stephanie.
- Stephanie appealed, arguing errors regarding (a) a second hearing on fees, (b) the reasonableness of the fees, and (c) the finding of contempt for denying visitation; she also argued the court erred in not finding Patrick in contempt for unpaid child support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement and reasonableness of attorney’s fees | Dupree argued fees were unreasonable and generated by needless litigation; also contends recipient’s inability to pay should be considered | Pafford sought fees as sanctions for contempt; court may award fees without regard to recipient’s ability to pay | Court affirmed fee award as reasonable and within chancellor’s discretion; recipient’s inability to pay not required for award |
| Right to a second/bifurcated hearing on fees | Dupree asserted her counsel reserved right to cross-examine fee affidavits later and thus was entitled to another hearing | Pafford relied on admission of affidavits at hearing; chancellor had opportunity to decide then | Court held Dupree failed to timely request bifurcation and waived the opportunity; no error in denying a second hearing |
| Contempt for denying visitation (Dupree) | Dupree testified Pafford often declined visitation; denied some instances she was accused of | Pafford provided detailed instances of court-ordered visitation being refused | Court affirmed chancellor’s contempt finding, crediting Pafford’s testimony and chancellor’s credibility determinations |
| Contempt for late/partial child-support payments (Pafford) | Dupree argued Pafford wilfully failed to pay timely support, with long unpaid stretches | Pafford claimed inability to locate Dupree for a time and payroll withholding errors causing intermittent underpayments | Court reversed and rendered contempt against Pafford for untimely support payments; remanded for assessment of attorney’s fees and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogillio v. Rogillio, 101 So. 3d 150 (Miss. 2012) (failure of appellee’s brief treated as confession of error unless record supports affirmance)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 121 So. 3d 266 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (appellate standard: affirm chancellor unless findings are manifestly wrong)
- Caldwell v. Atwood, 179 So. 3d 1210 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (attorney’s fees may be awarded against contemnor without regard to recipient’s inability to pay)
- West v. West, 88 So. 3d 735 (Miss. 2012) (detailed findings not required when fee award is reasonable)
- Holloway v. Holloway, 865 So. 2d 382 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (parties cannot avoid contempt consequences by curing contempt only after contempt petition filed)