Paula Jacob v. Tim Jacob

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

CA 00-231

December 20, 2000

PAULA JACOB APPEAL FROM PULASKI COUNTY

APPELLANT CHANCERY COURT

VS.

HONORABLE ROBIN L. MAYS,

CHANCERY JUDGE

TIM JACOB

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from an order of the Pulaski County Chancery Court finding the appellant, Paula Jacob, in contempt of prior orders of the court. The parties were divorced in November 1998 and have had continuing difficulties since that time. On August 31, 1999, the chancellor entered an order finding Paula Jacob in contempt of a previous order requiring her to appear at a time and date certain to transfer some personal property to the appellee. The court sentenced her to two days in jail. In the same order the court found that she was in contempt of a priororder requiring her to permit daily telephone contact between the appellee and the parties' children, and the court suspended any punishment for a period of one year.

On appeal appellant argues that the chancellor's finding that she was in contempt for failing to permit the telephone contact is not supported by substantial evidence and that the trial court erred in ignoring mitigating evidence in imposing the sentence of two days in jail for contempt.

In regard to the finding of contempt for failure to meet with the appellee at a set time to transfer property, we do not understand the appellant to argue that the court's finding of contempt is not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, the argument appears to be that the court erred in "ignoring mitigating evidence." Appellant says that the mitigating circumstances are that the appellee had disconnected utilities to the marital residence and that some of the property complained of had been returned to the appellee.

We find no error in this regard. First, we are not persuaded that the chancellor ignored the evidence referred to. Second, the evidence relied upon by the appellant does not excuse her violation of the court's order. Finally, we do not believe the sentence imposed was excessive under the circumstances.

As to the chancellor's finding that appellant was in contempt of court for refusing to permit telephone contact between the appellee and his children, this issue is rendered moot by the court's suspension of any sentence. The suspension of a sentence for contempt is in effect a complete remission. Henry v. Eberhard, 309 Ark. 336, 832 S.W.2d 467 (1992); Warren v. Robinson, 288 Ark. 249, 704 S.W.2d 614 (1986); Stewart, et al. v. State, 221 Ark. 496, 254 S.W.2d 55 (1953).

Affirmed.

Bird and Stroud, JJ., agree.