Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lyman v. Jackson
Citations: 600 So. 2d 334; 1992 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 288; 1992 WL 134737Docket: 2910060
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; June 19, 1992; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Mary Elizabeth Jackson Lyman was found in criminal contempt of court due to a visitation dispute regarding her daughter following a divorce from the father, who had been granted visitation rights. The trial court imposed sanctions, including a $1325 attorney fee, court costs, a $100 fine, and a two-day jail sentence. The appeal centers on whether this finding and the sanctions were erroneous. The couple's divorce judgment granted custody to the mother and established visitation for the father, which was modified in 1987 and again in 1988, mandating that the father could visit his daughter for six weeks each summer starting on July 1. On June 27, 1991, the father filed a petition asserting that the mother planned to take their daughter to New York for dance activities during the scheduled visitation, claiming this was a willful refusal to comply with the 1988 order. In response, the mother sought to modify visitation citing the daughter’s involvement in summer activities and her expressed desire to avoid visits with the father. On June 28, 1991, a circuit court judge temporarily suspended the father's visitation rights to accommodate the daughter's dance schedule. However, on July 1, 1991, a different judge found the mother in criminal contempt for not adhering to the 1988 order. The mother later filed a motion to amend or vacate the contempt ruling, arguing that the June 28 order had suspended the earlier visitation order, but this motion was denied by operation of law under Rule 59.1, A.R.Civ.P. The mother appeals the trial court's decision to hold her in criminal contempt for allegedly violating a visitation order. She argues that the 1988 visitation order she supposedly interfered with was not in effect, as it was scheduled to commence only on the day of the contempt hearing and had been suspended pending a final hearing. The appellate court agrees with the mother, emphasizing that the key question on appeal is whether she was guilty of contempt. The court distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt, noting that the latter involves punishment for disobeying a court order. It concludes that the mother did not disobey the visitation order since it had been suspended by a previous court order. Consequently, the appellate court reverses the trial court’s contempt judgment and annuls the sanctions imposed on her. The decision is supported by judges Thigpen and Russell.