Opinion ID: 1694550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees without proof of appellee's inability to pay.

Text: William is correct in asserting that, in divorce cases, a chancellor may not award attorney fees if the moving party can pay. Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704, 707 (Miss. 1990). However, the record clearly demonstrates that Frances stated that she did not have the ability to pay. William's attorney by not asking questions about Frances' inability to pay, failed to establish evidence of her financial status. As a result, the only evidence available is Frances' testimony that she could not pay. Furthermore, this case is not about divorce. It is a civil contempt action. Courts do have the authority to award reasonable attorney fees in these actions. Hinds County Bd. of Sup'rs v. Common Cause of Mississippi, 551 So.2d 107, 125 (Miss. 1989). This power serves to make the plaintiff whole and enforce compliance with a court decree. Id. at 125. This Court affirms the chancellor's award of attorney fees to Frances as fair and reasonable. Id. at 126. This Court allows broad discretion in determining an award. Id. This Court affirms awards of attorney fees in divorce cases as long as an abuse of discretion has not occurred. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1282 (Miss. 1993). Although Frances sought $1,742.65 for incurred attorney fees, the chancellor found $1,000 to be fair and reasonable as partial attorney fees. The chancellor provided no reasoning as to why she chose a partial amount. However, this Court presumes that with no findings of fact in the record, the trial court resolved all findings in favor of the appellee. Love v. Barnett, 611 So.2d 205, 207 (Miss. 1992). For this reason, the award is affirmed on direct appeal and cross-appeal.