Sheila Ann Jones v. Michael Boyd Jones

Citation: 239 So. 3d 1091Docket: 2016-CA-01008-COA

Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; March 5, 2018; Mississippi; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sheila Ann Jones initiated a contempt action against her ex-husband, Michael Boyd Jones, for failing to comply with their divorce judgment. After Sheila presented her case, the Special Chancellor granted Michael's motion for a directed verdict, denying Sheila’s petition and setting aside the divorce judgment and property settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, rendering and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Sheila and Michael were married for nearly 34 years and filed a Joint Complaint for Divorce in February 2012, which included an Agreement covering child custody, property settlement, and spousal support. This Agreement became the Final Decree of Divorce executed by Chancellor Jacqueline Mask on May 4, 2012.

In June 2015, Sheila filed a Petition for Contempt, alleging Michael's non-compliance with the Judgment. At the hearing, Sheila's request for a continuance was denied, and Michael asserted three affirmative defenses: laches, the statute of frauds, and lack of consideration. Sheila was the sole witness, testifying that their daughter prepared the divorce documents and that Michael had reviewed and signed them. Key provisions involved Michael’s obligation to pay Sheila $25,000 for her share of a house, in $500 monthly installments, and $300 monthly spousal support for up to 24 months.

Sheila testified that she needed funds for a job relocation and offered to waive remaining spousal payments in exchange for two months' payment of $1,000. She claimed that Michael accepted this offer and provided evidence of two checks he issued to her in July 2012, indicating he made regular payments until March 2013.

Sheila testified that Mike had paid $6,000 in total but was in arrears by $19,000. She also incurred $1,800 in attorney's fees to initiate a contempt action. During cross-examination, Sheila explained that they lost their home due to financial issues and entered into an agreement with Mike's parents to purchase a property, committing to pay $500 per month for ten years, totaling $60,000, after which the property would belong to them. Sheila acknowledged that the agreement was noted on a small yellow sheet, which she did not possess, and admitted she lacked a deed for the property.

After Sheila rested her case, Mike's attorney moved for a directed verdict to dismiss the contempt claim, asserting that the burden of proof had not been met. The Special Chancellor ruled that the evidence suggested either a lack of mutual understanding or potential fraud regarding a $25,000 amount mentioned in the property settlement agreement, which did not explicitly state it was for Sheila's interest in the house. The court determined that, according to the statute of frauds, the agreement needed to be in writing if not executed within 15 months. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the contempt claim and set aside the divorce and property settlement agreement, indicating that there was no genuine meeting of the minds and possible fraud involved.

The court acknowledged Mike's payment of $6,000 and identified $4,800 due under the alimony provision. The court stated that while the divorce agreement was set aside, any future proceedings should allow Mike to receive credit for either the $6,000 paid towards the house or the $4,800 for alimony, but not both, as he owed the alimony for the 16 months prior to Sheila's remarriage.

The motion for contempt seeks $19,000, but the court clarifies that if it had determined property ownership, only $9,000 would be owed, given a payment plan of $500 a month, with no obligation for early payment. The court notes the necessity for a judge to resolve equitable distribution once testimony is heard. Due to a lack of mutual agreement between the parties, the court finds that the property distribution was not fair or equitable under Mississippi law. Consequently, the court modifies the pleadings to reflect the testimony and reverts the case to an original divorce proceeding for equitable property distribution and potential alimony.

On June 24, 2016, the Special Chancellor dismissed Sheila’s contempt petition based on the statute of frauds, determining there was no meeting of the minds regarding the property settlement agreement, leading to an inequitable property distribution. The divorce decree and property settlement were thus set aside, and this order is certified as a final judgment under Rule 54(b).

Sheila appeals this dismissal, arguing it was erroneous. After she rested her case, Mike's attorney moved for a directed verdict; however, the appropriate motion in a bench trial would be for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows the defendant to seek dismissal based on the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate a right to relief after the plaintiff's evidence is presented. The court's approach to this motion is governed by case law, which states that a directed verdict in a bench trial is effectively a dismissal on the merits, reviewed under a substantial evidence/manifest error standard. The trial judge must evaluate the evidence fairly and dismiss if it favors the movant, denying dismissal only if the evidence would compel a finding for the plaintiff.

Sheila filed a contempt petition based on a Judgment approved and signed by Chancellor Mask, asserting that Mike owed her $19,000 plus attorneys' fees after failing to pay amounts he had agreed to. The court referenced A.M.L. v. J.W.L., establishing that a contempt citation is appropriate only when a party willfully ignores a court order. The Special Chancellor ruled that the statute of frauds provided a defense for Mike, citing Mississippi Code Annotated section 15-3-1(d), which requires written agreements for actions not performable within fifteen months. However, the Agreement and Judgment were in writing and signed, thereby satisfying the statute. The Chancellor improperly extended the inquiry to whether there was a separate written agreement involving Mike’s parents, despite the original Judgment addressing this matter. The Special Chancellor also questioned the enforceability of the contract regarding property interests, but these issues were already resolved in the Judgment. Consequently, the court found the Chancellor committed a manifest error in dismissing Sheila's contempt action and reversed the decision for further proceedings.

Furthermore, the Special Chancellor ruled to set aside the divorce decree based solely on Sheila's testimony without any joint application or evidence of reconciliation from either party, which was not within the Chancellor's authority. The ruling lacked support, as neither party sought to revoke the divorce; the matter before the court was solely the contempt petition. The Special Chancellor's decision was deemed beyond the scope of legal authority.

The Special Chancellor's decision to set aside the Judgment and Agreement was found to be manifestly wrong and clearly erroneous. Consequently, the order dated June 24, 2016, is reversed, and both the Judgment and the Agreement are reinstated. The Special Chancellor incorrectly claimed there was no fair and equitable distribution of property, contradicting Chancellor Mask’s original Judgment, which was not contested by either Sheila or Mike. Furthermore, the Special Chancellor's assertion that Sheila and Mike did not reach a meeting of the minds regarding their agreement was unsupported by evidence. Sheila provided the Judgment and testified that Mike had complied with it, including making monthly spousal support payments and agreeing to pay $500 monthly for her property interest. Therefore, the Special Chancellor's order is reversed and rendered, with the case remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this ruling. The decision was concurred by multiple justices, with one justice concurring only in result without a separate opinion.