Beryl B. Farris (Wife) appeals from the trial court’s order holding her in contempt for failing to sell a home to Marc Farris (Husband) following the parties’ divorce. In сonnection with its finding of contempt, but in a separate order, the trial court also instructed Wife to pay Husband’s attorney fees of $2,341. As explained morе fully below, because Wife did not violate the terms of the final divorce decree by refusing to sell the home to Husband, we reverse the trial court’s finding of cоntempt against her. Further, because the trial court’s finding of contempt based on Wife’s failure to sell the home to Husband was erroneous, the award of attorney fees to Husband based upon that specific finding was also erroneous. Accordingly, to the extent that the trial court’s attorney fee award wаs based on Wife’s failure to sell the home to Husband, we vacate that portion of the trial court’s order awarding Husband attorney fees. To the extent that any question remains regarding an award of attorney fees to Husband in the absence of any finding of contempt against Wife, we remand this case to the trial court for reconsideration of the issue of attorney fees.
The record reveals that, in 1995, Wife filed for divorce from Husband in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. Following a November 13, 2007 bench trial, the trial court made an oral ruling as to the equitable division of the parties’ marital assets and debt, but did not enter its final judgment and divorce decree until December 19, 2007. The divorce decree provided for the sale of the marital residence as follows:
The [marital] residence shall be placed upon the market for sale by the [Wife] on January 1, 2008. Neither party shall reside in the residence after January 1, 2008. [Wife] shall be еntitled to choose the broker/agent with whom said residence shall be listed for a period of time not to exceed six (6) months. Unless the parties agreе to the contrary in writing, the house shall be listed and sold at a price of not less than $650,000.00. [Wife] shall be solely responsible for all aspects of the listing and salе. . . . [H]owever . . . should the residence not sell within this initial six (6) month period, then the [Husband] shall be entitled to manage the listing and sale of the residence under the same рrovisions and obligations as set forth above for the [Wife]. This process shall repeat itself every six (6) months until the residence is sold. . . . Upon the sale of [the marital] residence, each party shall be entitled to receive one-half (V2) of the net proceeds derived from said sale.
Final Decree Paragraphs 2 (b) and (d).
On December 10, 2007, follоwing the trial court’s ruling from the bench, but prior to the entry of the final decree, Husband made an offer to purchase Wife’s interest in the house for $325,000. Wife rejeсted Husband’s offer, and on February 1, 2008, she listed the house for sale with a real estate agent for $1,100,00o.
1
On February 4, 2008, Wife accepted an offer from the pаrties’ daughters in the amount of $650,150. Husband rejected the proposed sale, however, because the sales agreement included terms that would have required Husband and Wife to pay $5,000 in closing costs and to finance $325,000 of the purchase price. On April 14, 2008, Wife filed a motion to hold Husband in contempt for rejecting her proposed contract to sell the house to their daughters. Husband then filed his own motion to hold Wife in contempt for rejecting his December 2007 offеr. On June 11, 2008, the trial court held a hearing on the parties’ motions, and in a June 23, 2008 order, the trial court found Wife to be in willful contempt for having rejected Husband’s offer to purchase the
1. Before a person may be held in contempt for viоlating a court order, the order should inform him in definite terms as to the duties thereby imposed upon him, and the command must therefore be express rather than imрlied. [Cit.]” (Punctuation omitted.)
Hall v. Nelson,
2. Because the trial court erred in holding Wife in contempt for refusing to sell the home to Husband, the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Husband based on that finding of contempt was also erroneous.
McGahee,
supra,
However, in connection with its award of attorney fees to Husband, the trial court also found that the award was justified in light оf “the entire matter of contempt [being] initiated by the mother’s motion for contempt . . . [and the mother] caus[ing] the proceedings in question.” See
McGahee,
supra,
Judgment reversed in рart, vacated in part, and case remanded.
Notes
We note that the trial court did not hold Wife in contempt for failing to place the marital residence on the market by January 1, 2008, but specifically for failing to sell the home to Husband pursuant to his December 10, 2007 offer.