Brown v. Brown
Annotate this CaseWife appealed an adverse judgment in an action for contempt. The record shows Wife and Husband were divorced on June 20, 2011. Neither party was represented by counsel during the divorce. The final divorce decree was a perfunctory, one-page form document which incorporated a form separation agreement that was found on the Internet, printed and signed by both parties then notarized. The separation agreement was not fully filled in and/or marked where appropriate; but it purported to require Husband to pay $513 per month as alimony and $647 as child support. In addition to the final decree and separation agreement, the record also contains an unsigned, two-page typed document, drafted by Husband, which was filed with the trial court on May 10, 2011, at approximately the same time the separation agreement was executed. This document states that the parties “wish” to hold onto the marital home until the economy improved, that Wife will occupy the home, and that the combined alimony and support payment was sufficient to pay the mortgage on the home. This document was not referenced by or incorporated into the final decree of divorce. Husband stopped making mortgage payments sometime after the divorce was finalized, the bank foreclosed on the marital home, and Wife was evicted. Wife filed this contempt action alleging Husband was required to make the alimony and child support payments to her directly, rather than by depositing the money into a joint bank account. The trial court declined to hold Husband in contempt, determining that the documents filed in the divorce did not require Husband to make his support payments directly to Wife, that the two-page typed document was not a part of the divorce decree and that, even if that document was a part of the divorce decree, it was too vague to be enforceable. The trial court determined that the two-page typed document did not obligate Husband to pay the mortgage. In addition, since the minor child was no longer living with Wife and was in Husband’s custody, the trial court held that Husband’s child support payments were to be immediately extinguished. Finally, the trial court denied Wife’s request for attorney’s fees and request for consequential damages stemming from her eviction from the marital home upon foreclosure. Wife’s main assertion of error was that Husband should have been held in contempt because he failed to pay the alimony and the child support payments to her directly, but rather deposited the payments into the parties’ joint bank account. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s denial, the Supreme Court affirmed.
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.