Opinion ID: 1148875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: the chancellor was manifestly wrong in failing to find husband in contempt of court.

Text: ¶ 49. The chancellor found that Ronnie had failed to pay child support and college expenses, and that he had canceled the life insurance ordered by the divorce court. Nevertheless, the chancellor did not find, based upon the proof and Ronnie's circumstances, that Ronnie was in willful contempt of the decree. The chancellor noted that some payments had been made. ¶ 50. Linda complains that the chancellor erred in failing to find that Ronnie's actions were contemptuous. Ronnie defended his failure to pay college expenses on the basis of (1) Troy's poor academic performance and (2) the fact that no demand for payment was ever made by Linda or Troy. He defended his failure to pay child support after Troy reached his eighteenth birthday (1) on the basis of Troy's strained relationship with his father and (2) because he had been advised by a lawyer that he did not have to pay child support once Troy attained the age of eighteen. ¶ 51. Linda says that Ronnie's defenses should be held for naught because his credibility was shown to be lacking. Resolution of this question, however, turns upon Ronnie's credibility and the weight and worth of his testimony, matters we will not undertake to examine on appeal. [T]he chancellor is the judge of the weight and worth of the testimony in a divorce proceeding. Dubois v. Dubois, 275 So.2d 100, 101 (Miss. 1973). See also Rainey v. Rainey, 205 So.2d 514 (Miss. 1967). ¶ 52. Contempt can only be willful. A contempt citation is proper only when the contemner has wilfully and deliberately ignored the order of the court. Cooper v. Keyes, 510 So.2d 518, 519 (Miss. 1987), citing Millis v. State, 106 Miss. 131, 63 So. 344 (1913). It is a defense to a contempt proceeding that the person was not guilty of willful or deliberate violations of a prior judgment or decree. Dunaway v. Busbin, 498 So.2d 1218 (Miss. 1986). ¶ 53. In Milam v. Milam, 509 So.2d 864, 866 (Miss. 1987), we stated: [W]e will not reverse the Chancellor upon a finding of fact short of manifest error, and none is present here. Contempt is to be determined upon the facts of an individual case and is a matter for the trier of fact. See Rubisoff v. Rubisoff, 242 Miss. 225, 133 So.2d 534 (1961) at 538. See also Premeaux v. Smith, 569 So.2d 681, 683 (Miss. 1990). We do not find manifest error in this case, and accordingly affirm the chancellor.