Opinion ID: 1783903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the chancery court's judgment of May 21, 1990, holding Martin in contempt for failing to pay child support and other obligations and awarding Janice a judgment for $82,119.86, erroneous?

Text: Once a plaintiff establishes an indebtedness, to avoid contempt, the defendant must show his inability to pay the support ... or ... give a reasonable excuse for not doing so. Rhodes v. Rhodes, 420 So.2d 759, 760 (Miss. 1982). We have stated: In such a posture, the defendant may avoid a judgment of contempt by establishing that he is without present ability to discharge his obligation. Ramsay v. Ramsay, 125 Miss. 185, 87 So. 491, 493 (1921). The defendant has the burden of proving his inability to pay. Redding v. Redding, 167 Miss. 780, 150 So. 776 (1933). Such a showing must be made with particularity and not in general terms. Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276, 278 (Miss. 1967). Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 271 (Miss. 1985). Martin claims that the amount for which the future interest was sold was far below the value of such interest as shown by the appraiser's testimony. The interest netted approximately $160,000.00 after all expenses were paid. Obviously, Martin did have the means with which to pay his indebtedness. He admitted to having the ability to pay; he simply choose not to pay. We have stated that contempt matters are committed to the substantial discretion of the trial court which, by institutional circumstance and both temporal and visual proximity, is infinitely more competent to decide the matter than are we. Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So.2d 839, 845 (Miss. 1990). See Milam v. Milam, 509 So.2d 864, 866 (Miss. 1987); Walters v. Walters, 383 So.2d 827, 829 (Miss. 1980). Because no manifest error has been shown, the contempt charges entered on May 21, 1990, against Martin are affirmed.