Wanda B. Montgomery v. John Prate Montgomery
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CA-01769-COA
WANDA B. MONTGOMERY
APPELLANT
v.
JOHN PRATE MONTGOMERY
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
11/1/2000
HON. JAMES S. GORE
OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
RODNEY A. RAY
BEN F. HILBUN
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
WANDA MONTGOMERY IN CONTEMPT OF
COURT. ORDERED TO PAY COURT COSTS,
ATTORNEY'S FEES OF $750, AND $4,550 AS
VALUE OF LOST PROPERTY
AFFIRMED - 05/18/2004
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Wanda Montgomery was found in contempt of court by the Chancery Court of Oktibbeha County.
She was ordered to pay John Prate Montgomery the sum of $4,550 as compensation for items removed
from his camp house; and attorney's fees of $750. On appeal, Mrs. Montgomery claims that the
chancellor's ruling was clearly erroneous. We find no error and affirm.
¶2.
The Montgomerys were granted a divorce on October 14, 1998. As part of the separation
agreement, Mrs. Montgomery was allowed to live in her former husband's camp house. She agreed to
vacate it no later than March 5, 1999. Apparently the parties agreed to extend the date to April 15, 1999.
She also agreed to leave certain items in the camp house upon her departure and to return certain items that
she had removed prior to the separation agreement.
¶3.
On May 27, 1999, John Montgomery filed a motion to cite his former wife for contempt. He
claimed that she had removed thirty items from the camp house in violation of the court decree. He
compiled a list of missing items ranging from light bulbs to a field cultivator.
¶4.
Mrs. Montgomery responded on June 3, 1999, generally denying that she should be held in
contempt of court. On September 14, 2000, she filed a motion to cite Mr. Montgomery for contempt in
that he had failed, among other complaints, to pay alimony for several months. A hearing was held in
October. At the hearing the parties informed the chancellor that the matters raised in Mrs. Montgomery's
motion had been resolved. The chancellor conducted an evidentiary hearing solely on Mr. Montgomery's
claims. Each Montgomery testified with different versions of the dispute. A few weeks after the hearing,
the chancellor found Mrs. Montgomery in civil contempt of court. She was ordered to pay the sum of
$4,550 as compensation for items removed from the camp house, and also to pay attorney's fees of $750
and court costs. She appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶5.
Mrs. Montgomery claims that the chancellor's decision finding her in contempt of court is clearly
erroneous. A finding of civil contempt is given deference because the trial judge is in a better position to
review all circumstances including the credibility of the witnesses and the facts of the case. Cumberland
2
v. Cumberland, 564 So. 2d 839, 845 (Miss. 1990). If substantial credible evidence supports the findings,
we will affirm. Varner v. Varner, 666 So.2d 493, 496 (Miss.1995).
¶6.
At the time of Mrs. Montgomery's move into the camp house, neither party made an inventory of
all items in the house. Further, Mrs. Montgomery was to give her ex-husband thirty days notice before she
moved out of the house. The record reveals that the back door to the camp house was never locked, and
that many people may have had access to the house. The record also reveals that, upon leaving, Mrs.
Montgomery removed the locks to the doors and left them in the middle of the floor of a room in the camp
house.
¶7.
After the dispute over missing items arose, Mrs. Montgomery delivered a trailer to Mr.
Montgomery, which contained some of the missing property.
The record also supports that Mrs.
Montgomery intentionally damaged the camp house and some of its contents. She admitted to pouring oil
on the ground outside the camp house and then tracking it into the house. She stated in her testimony that
she did this in an attempt to retaliate against her husband for stating that it was a woman's job to clean the
house. Mr. Montgomery also testified that she threw flour on the walls, a claim that Mrs. Montgomery
denied.
¶8.
Mrs. Montgomery admitted that she gave the field cultivator and other items to a scrap metal
collector who cleaned up the area around the camp house. She claims that she first notified Mr.
Montgomery that the area needed cleaning. He allegedly responded by stating that he had no need for the
items. Mrs. Montgomery also admitted that she had given a steel vat to her brother and that the vat had
since been returned. She admitted that she had removed pillows from the couch in the camp house when
she moved out. She stated that she used these pillows to protect her tanning bed from being damaged
when she moved it from the house. She admitted taking the pillows to a storage facility and did not recall
3
how long it took for her to return them. Mr. Montgomery stated that only one of the pillows was returned,
that it was approximately one year later, and by that time he had replaced the couch because it was of no
use without the pillows. Mr. Montgomery also claims that Mrs. Montgomery unplugged the deep freeze
leaving the contents to spoil. He claimed that he could no longer use the freezer because of the odor that
was too hard to remove.
¶9.
Intent may be determined from a person's acts. Corbin v. State, 585 So.2d 713, 721 (Miss.
1991). Mrs. Montgomery's admissions and possession of many of the thirty missing items leads to
inferences that she intended to dispossess Mr. Montgomery of items in the camp house.
¶10.
The chancellor had substantial credible direct evidence and reasonable inferences to draw from that
evidence. Thirty items were in dispute. Each item had been priced by Mr. Montgomery for replacement
or repair. The total claim was for more than $10,000. The chancellor awarded $4,550 for the field
cultivator, stainless steel vat, pots, pans, knives, forks, spoons, and posthole digger. He did not award
monetary damages for every item.
¶11.
The evidence was disputed and was not in all particulars as clear as no doubt the chancellor would
have preferred. Based on what was presented, though, there was a sufficient basis for the determination
that Mrs. Montgomery intentionally damaged or discarded property that she reasonably knew should be
returned to her husband. Weighing the equities, the award of this amount of monetary damages was
justified.
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF OKTIBBEHA COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. STATUTORY DAMAGES AND INTEREST ARE AWARDED. ALL COSTS
OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND
GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
4
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
