Before McMILLIN, P.j., Herring, And Hinkebein, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: McMILLIN, P.j
BEVERLY C. ROBINSON, APPELLANT v. ARLAN L. ROBINSON, APPELLEE
THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/09/96
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JASON H. FLOYD JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: STONE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: THE CHANCELLOR FOUND BEVERLY C. ROBINSON TO BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND AWARDED ARLAN L. ROBINSON $42,500.
DISPOSITION AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART - 4/7/98
This case is an appeal from a judgment on a contempt petition in a domestic relations matter in the Chancery Court of Stone County. The chancellor found Mrs. Robinson to be in contempt of a previous order relating to the disposition of jointly-owned household goods and furnishings, and Mrs. Robinson now appeals. We affirm the adjudication of contempt, but reverse and remand for further proceedings relating to the valuation assigned to the household goods.
Our understanding of the facts of this appeal is somewhat limited due to the inexplicable failure of either party to make the order which Mrs. Robinson was alleged to have disobeyed a part of the record on appeal. Insofar as this patently-incomplete record shows, however, we understand the facts to be as follows: Arlan Robinson and Beverly Robinson were granted a divorce. As a part of the divorce judgment, the chancellor ordered the parties to undertake a mutually agreeable division of the contents of the marital home, reserving the right to intervene if the parties were unable to amicably agree to the terms of such a division. Pending that division, Mrs. Robinson was given temporary possession of the marital home and its contents. The parties subsequently were unable to arrive at an agreeable division of the household goods. There was apparently also an unresolved question regarding the Disposition of the homeplace itself. The chancellor, therefore, entered a subsequent order for a partition sale of the home and made provisions for a forced resolution of the unresolved division of the contents. The chancellor also ordered Mrs. Robinson to surrender temporary possession of the home and contents to Mr. Robinson pending the sale. Mr. Robinson alleges that, upon re-entering the home, he discovered that essentially all of the contents of the home had been removed by Mrs. Robinson. This discovery led Mr. Robinson to commence the contempt proceeding that is now before us on appeal.
The chancellor found Mrs. Robinson to be in contempt for her act of removing the contents of the home. He also found, as a matter of fact, that the value of the contents wrongfully removed by her was $85,000, and he entered judgment against her for half that amount, or $42,500, in favor of Mr. Robinson, decreeing that the judgment be an equitable lien against her one-half share of the proceeds from the sale of the homeplace.
Mrs. Robinson perfected this appeal raising two issues. First, she claims that there was insufficient evidence of the value of the disputed household goods to support a monetary judgment against her in the amount of $42,500. Second, she claims that the chancellor erred in finding her in contempt because the contempt order "lacks specificity as to the underlying order which was disobeyed." We will consider the issues ...