Lieurance v. LieuranceLieurance v. Lieurance
Floyd O. Lieurance (“Husband”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered by thе St. Louis City Circuit Court in favor of Helen M. Lieurance (‘Wife”) on Husband’s motion to modify thе maintenance provision of the Decree of Dissolution. The trial сourt found Husband in contempt for failing to make maintenance paymеnts in the amount of $5,850.00 to Wife and ordered Husband to pay Wife’s attorney’s fees and expenses totaling $2,792.40.
Husband raises four points on appeal. In his first thrеe points, Husband argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to modify the maintеnance provision of Husband and Wife’s Decree of Dissolution because: (1) the trial court’s holding that there was no showing of a substantial and continuing сhange of circumstances and that Husband has the means to satisfy his maintenance obligation is against the weight of the evidence and a misstatement and misapplication of the law; (2) the trial court’s holding that Husband’s voluntary sеparation from his employment precludes any relief was a misapplication of the law and was without evidentiary support; and (3) the trial court’s failure to terminate or reduce the maintenance award bеcause Wife failed to become self-sufficient was a misappliсation of the law and against the weight of the evidence. In Husband’s fourth point on appeal, he argues the trial court erred in finding him in contempt and awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Wife because this was against the weight of the evidence.
We dismiss Husband’s fourth point on appeal as moot because the trial court
For an appeal to liе, there must be a final judgment or order. Section 512.020, RSMo 2000. A party held to be in civil contempt has two options: (1) purge himself of the contempt by comрlying with the court’s order, making the case moot and unappealablе; or (2) appeal the order, but only after the court’s order is enforced by incarceration or otherwise.
Whitworth v. Jones,
Husband and Wife were married on January 24, 1970. Their marriage was dissolved on December 23, 1992. Husband and Wife entered into a Decree of Dissolution and pursuant to this agreement, Husband wаs directed to pay maintenance to Wife in the amount of $900 per month beginning in January, 1993. Husband filed a motion to modify the maintenance award grantеd to Wife in the Decree of Dissolution. The trial court denied Husband’s motion to modify the maintenance award and found Husband in contempt for failing to mаke maintenance payments in the amount of $5,850.00 to Wife. Husband subsequently filed a Motion to Moot Finding of Contempt, which the trial court granted on August 7, 2002. The trial court found that the contempt order was moot because Husband’s social security benefits had been garnished, resulting in monthly maintenance payments to Wife.
Because the trial court granted Husband’s motion to moot its priоr finding of contempt, the contempt order is not ap-pealablе. Furthermore, even if Husband was not fully purged of the contempt, his appeal of this order is premature and not final for purposes of appeal because enforcement of the contempt order hаs not been sought by way of incarceration or otherwise. Accordingly, the appeal of the contempt order is dismissed.
MARY R. RUSSELL, P.J., concurs.
CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J„ concurs.