Bobby Charles Mitchell, Jr. v. Kimberly Betty Kilgore Mitchell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2010-CA-00897-COA
BOBBY CHARLES MITCHELL JR.
APPELLANT
v.
KIMBERLY BETTY KILGORE MITCHELL
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
05/03/2010
HON. MITCHELL M. LUNDY JR.
DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
VANN FREDRIC LEONARD
BETTY SLADE DEROSSETTE
MARC E. BRAND
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
HUSBAND HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR
FAILURE TO PAY ALIMONY; CHILD
SUPPORT AND VISITATION MODIFIED
AFFIRMED: 08/09/2011
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES AND ROBERTS, JJ.
GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Bobby Charles Mitchell Jr. appeals the judgment of the DeSoto County Chancery
Court finding him in contempt of court for the failure to make alimony payments as directed
by the parties’ divorce decree. Bobby claims that his ex-wife, Kimberly Betty Kilgore
Mitchell, also failed to abide by the provisions of the divorce decree; thus, Bobby claims: (1)
Kimberly should not have been granted relief because she entered court with unclean hands;
and (2) the chancellor should have found Kimberly in contempt of court for her failure to
make the mortgage payments on the marital home. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
The parties divorced on December 2, 2008. A settlement agreement concerning child
custody, child support, and property division was incorporated into the divorce decree.
Kimberly was awarded $1,000 per month in alimony, and she received ownership of the
marital home. The agreement stated: “Wife shall attempt to refinance the home within the
twenty-four months that she is receiving assistance with the mortgage.” 1
¶3.
Bobby failed to make any alimony payments after March 2009. As a result, Kimberly
filed a petition for contempt and modification on April 28, 2009. Bobby filed his answer and
petition for modification on October 7, 2009. He asserted the defense of unclean hands
because Kimberly had failed to refinance the mortgage on the marital home and remove his
name from the loan. Because Kimberly had failed to make the mortgage payments, Bobby
argued that his credit rating had been harmed.
¶4.
In his answer, Bobby admitted that he had not made his required alimony payments.
Instead, he chose to place those funds into the escrow account of his attorney because
Kimberly had not made the mortgage payments. At trial, Kimberly testified that she had
made the mortgage payment through June 2009. She was unable to make the subsequent
payments because of Bobby’s failure to pay her alimony. Kimberly also testified that she
had attempted to sell the home via a short sell; however, Bobby had stopped the sale because
it would have resulted in a tax liability for him.
1
The agreement was not made part of the record on appeal. We rely on Bobby’s brief
and testimony during trial to ascertain the language of the agreement.
2
¶5.
The chancellor found that Kimberly was the exclusive owner of the marital home, and
she was not in contempt for her failure to refinance or sell the home. The chancellor held
Bobby in contempt for his failure to make alimony payments and awarded Kimberly $14,280
in delinquent alimony.2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶6.
“This Court will affirm the decision of the chancellor when it is supported by
substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused [his] discretion, the decision was
manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or the chancellor applied an erroneous legal
standard.” Pool v. Pool, 989 So. 2d 920, 923 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).
ANALYSIS
1.
¶7.
Whether Bobby may assert the unclean-hands doctrine as a defense
to his failure to make alimony payments.
Bobby claims that Kimberly could not seek relief from the chancellor because she
failed to comply with the provision of the divorce decree that required her to keep up the
mortgage payments on the home. Bobby argues that Kimberly’s failure to do so made her
in contempt and invoked the unclean-hands doctrine, which is his defense for refusing to
make the alimony payments required by the divorce decree.
¶8.
“The clean[-]hands doctrine prevents a complaining party from obtaining equitable
relief in court when he is guilty of willful misconduct in the transaction at issue.” Bailey v.
Bailey, 724 So. 2d 335, 337 (¶6) (Miss. 1998). At the time of the filing of Kimberly’s
petition for contempt, there is no evidence that she had violated any portion of the divorce
2
The chancellor also modified visitation and lowered Bobby’s monthly child-support
payments. Neither of these issues have been raised on appeal.
3
decree. It is undisputed that Bobby had stopped making his alimony payments months before
Kimberly stopped making the mortgage payments. The agreement provided for alimony
payments for twenty-four months, in which time Kimberly was required to attempt to
refinance the home. Yet Bobby had stopped making the alimony payments just four months
after the divorce was finalized. Bobby may not assert Kimberly’s failure to make the
mortgage payments as a defense to the contempt proceeding when there was sufficient proof
that her nonpayment was a direct result of his decision to withhold alimony payments.
¶9.
Accordingly, we find that the chancellor properly denied Bobby’s assertion of the
defense of unclean hands.
2.
¶10.
Whether the chancellor properly held that no contempt action existed
as to Kimberly’s failure to refinance the marital home.
Bobby claims that the chancellor should have held Kimberly in contempt for her
failure to refinance the marital home. He contends that the language of the divorce decree
is clear that Kimberly must be responsible for and hold him harmless for all expenses relating
to the home.
¶11.
Bobby states that the divorce decree requires the following:
Wife shall receive the exclusive use, title, and possession to the marital
residence located at 3852 Misty Oaks Lane, Nesbit, MS 38651. Husband shall
execute a Quitclaim Deed relinquishing all of his right, title and interest in the
said property. Wife shall be responsible for all mortgage payments and related
expenses to the said residence and hold Husband harmless from same.
Husband agrees to sign whatever documents may be necessary in order for
Wife to obtain information about the mortgage so long as she is living in the
home. Wife shall attempt to refinance the home within the twenty-four months
that she is receiving assistance with the mortgage. Wife shall receive all
equity in the home. The Husband agrees to bring the mortgage current through
October 2008 in accordance with his obligation under the Temporary Order.
4
¶12.
On appeal, Bobby claims that Kimberly is in contempt because, at the time of the
hearing, she had failed to refinance the home within the twenty-four months following the
divorce. However, Bobby never requested that the chancellor find Kimberly in contempt.
In his answer and counter petition for modification, Bobby only requested that his child
support be reduced and his visitation be modified.
¶13.
Further, the agreement merely required that Kimberly attempt to refinance the home
within twenty-four months. Bobby presented absolutely no evidence that she failed to make
such attempt. Again, the record is clear that Kimberly was unable to make the mortgage
payments on the home due to Bobby’s decision to withhold alimony payments. Bobby also
chose to cancel Kimberly’s sale of the home because of certain tax consequences to him.
¶14.
The chancellor properly found that Kimberly was not in contempt for her failure to
refinance or sell the marital home. Therefore, the chancellor’s judgment is affirmed.
¶15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF DESOTO COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
LEE, C.J., IRVING, P.J., MYERS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON,
MAXWELL AND RUSSELL, JJ., CONCUR.
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.