Opinion ID: 1680396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: fine and sanctions

Text: ¶ 32. Hampton maintains the circuit court judge imposed excessive fines, by ordering her to pay attorney fees, witness fees, and court reporter fees. Nonetheless, Hampton failed to object to the fine and the sanctions imposed upon her by the judge. Before an issue may be assigned and argued in this Court, it must first be presented to the trial court. Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 838 (Miss.1983). Hampton failed to object and argue this issue in the circuit court. Thus, this issue is procedurally barred. Id. Nevertheless, we will consider this issue on the merits. ¶ 33. The circuit court judge imposed Hampton's punishment in accordance with the appropriate statute. Miss.Code Ann. § 9-1-17 (Rev.2002). The judge decreed that [Hampton] pay a fine of $100.00, as allowed, as authorized by statute, and that [Hampton] serve a term of three days in the Winston County Jail. The pertinent part of § 9-1-17 requires that the fine shall not exceed One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for each offense, nor shall the imprisonment continue longer than thirty (30) days. Therefore, the punishment levied against Hampton was within the confines of the applicable statute. ¶ 34. Hampton, asserts she should not have been ordered to pay attorney fees, witness fees and court reporter fees. Moreover, Hampton advances that her fine should have been limited to the statutory limit of $100. ¶ 35. Hampton was fined within the statutory limits when the judge imposed the punitive $100 fine due to her absence. After the judge reported what Hampton's punishment would entail, he subsequently bifurcated the hearing and then entertained testimony regarding sanctions on account of the harm Hampton's absence caused. Additionally, the judge noted on the record that the statute does not specifically state whether the court can deal with contempt and sanctions together. ¶ 36. Nevertheless, this Court has held that [a]n award of attorney's fees in a contempt case is proper. Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037, 1043 (Miss.1990) (citing Stauffer v. Stauffer, 379 So.2d 922, 924 (Miss.1980)). [T]he award of fees is largely entrusted to the sound discretion of the chancellor. Newell, 556 So.2d at 1043 (citing Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435, 440 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 37. The circuit court expressly decreed that Hampton's actions were willful, deliberate and contumacious. Thus, the judge's award of fees in this matter was certainly proper as Moses v. Moses, 879 So.2d 1036, 1041 (Miss.2004), states [i]n order to award attorney's fees in a contempt matter, the trial court must first consider if there was a willful violation of the court's order. ¶ 38. The judge astutely bifurcated the hearing and considered sanctions subsequent to his ruling in the contempt hearing. Hence, the fine and sanctions ordered by the judge were proper. This issue is without merit.