Opinion ID: 1148875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: the chancellor was manifestly wrong in awarding linda $1000 in attorneys fees.

Text: ¶ 54. In his ruling of September 5, 1991, the chancellor found that the [Divorce] Decree was not fully complied with and necessitated this action. The same observation was made in the Final Judgment entered on April 20, 1992. Accordingly, the chancellor awarded to Linda the sum of $1,000 as attorney's fees, together with all costs. ¶ 55. In his cross-appeal, Ronnie claims that Linda is financially able to pay her own attorney, and that the evidence presented in the lower court neither justified nor allowed an award of attorney's fees to Linda. Linda argues that she was forced to seek court intervention because of Ronnie's failure to comply with the court order. ¶ 56. The question of attorney's fees in a divorce action is a matter largely entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704 (Miss. 1990); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310 (Miss. 1986); Kergosien v. Kergosien, 471 So.2d 1206, 1207 (Miss. 1985). As we recently stated: We are reluctant to disturb a chancellor's discretionary determination whether or not to award attorney fees and of the amount of [any] award. Smith v. Smith, 614 So.2d 394, 398 (Miss. 1993), citing Geiger v. Geiger, 530 So.2d 185, 187 (Miss. 1988). ¶ 57. In Moore v. Moore, 372 So.2d 270, 272 (Miss. 1979), we held that a divorced wife who brought an action against former husband for failure to make child support payments was entitled to an award of $1,170 in attorney's fees, even though husband's default was not accompanied by a finding of contempt. Attorney's fees are the responsibility of the person required to make child support payments. Pearson v. Hatcher, 279 So.2d 654, 656 (Miss. 1973). ¶ 58. Perhaps, as Ronnie alleges, Linda could have afforded to pay her own attorney. Nevertheless, the chancellor found that Ronnie's actions necessitated the institution of legal proceedings. An itemized statement of legal services rendered by Linda's lawyer was introduced at trial. Her lawyer also testified concerning his services and $975 fee. [4] We find no abuse of judicial discretion in the $1,000 award of attorney's fees to Linda, and affirm.