The case of Thomas Jones versus Shanda Jones was taken up by the Mississippi Court of Appeals recently. Thomas and Shanda were divorced years ago but, similar to many divorces, the parties found themselves back in Court. Shanda claimed Thomas was in contempt for failing to pay things per the Chancery Court’s Order. If you read this blog regularly, you know that failing to do what a Judge Ordered is really not a lot different than taking a shotgun and blowing your own foot off. It just doesn’t make sense.

So let’s wade through some of the legal mumbo jumbo and see if we can figure out what happened with the Jones.

Here is the legal mumbo jumbo:

A party can be held in contempt for noncompliance with a judgment issued by the chancellor.” Weeks v. Weeks,29 So. 3d 80, 86(¶23)(Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Failure to comply with a court order is prima facie evidence of contempt.” Evans v. Evans, 75 So. 3d 1083, 1087 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

To rebut a prima facie case of contempt, [the non-moving party]must show an inability to pay, that the default was not willful, that the provision violated was ambiguous, or that performance was impossible.”

So what’s that mean in English? It means do what the Judge says and if you don’t, it’s likely the Judge will find you in contempt. The Judge will then likely have you paying thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees and expenses. Bottom line: do NOT do something this stupid.

Now, here’s where Shanda made a mistake. She prepared her own property settlement and child custody agreement. Listen, I know lawyers overcharge and jack people around but there’s a reason you have them and Shanda is about to find out.

Here’s what the Mississippi Court of Appeals said:

We find the property-settlement agreement, which was drafted by Shanda, to be vague and ambiguous regarding the expenses to be reimbursed. It requires the parties to be “equally. . . responsible for the costs of school[-]related expenses, extracurricular activities[,] and any miscellaneous expenses which may arise.” Yet, it fails to define or explain what is meant by such expenses. Thus, under the property-settlement agreement, Shanda contends that any activity in which the children participate is subject to reimbursement. The support for this argument is the fact that the property-settlement agreement not only requires payment for expenses of school and extracurricular activities, but also “miscellaneous” activities.

Based on this language, there appears to be no limit to such activities or expenses. Thus, Thomas maybe required to pay half of all expenses no matter the cost or his ability to pay. Additionally, under the property-settlement agreement, the parties agreed that “allmedical expenses not covered by insurance [would] be equally divided between the parties and/or reimbursed within ten (10)days of submitting invoices for same, including deductible.”

The property-settlement agreement requires an invoice to be paid or reimbursed within ten days of submission, but it does not place any limitation on the amount of time each party has to submit an invoice. Thus, under this language, a party could wait months or even years to submit various invoices and then demand payment of those invoices within ten days of submission, after the invoices have reached a substantial amount.

The property-settlement agreement requires the submission of an “invoice,” not an explanation of benefits (EOB). The record shows Thomas received various EOB statements regarding the children’s medical appointments and procedures. But an EOB is not an invoice. Although an EOB provides a statement of what insurance has covered, it does not provide proof of who has paid the balance, or whether the balance has been paid. According to Thomas, he did not receive bills or invoices for the children’s medical expenses and school and/or extracurricular activities until 2014. Thomas’s wife, Sherri, also testified that Thomas did not receive any bills prior to March 2014. Sherri explained that in March 2014, she and Thomas picked up the children on a Friday. Shanda handed Thomas a “big huge folder” of unpaid bills and advised that she would need “$5,000 by Sunday or she was taking him to court.” Sherri further testified that when Thomas requested bills or receipts, Shanda would respond that she “[d]idn’t have them ready .

After going over the facts above the Mississippi Court of Appeals then quoted this law:

Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts §205 (1981). Thus,in all divorce actions, the parties are obligated to act in good faith and to treat each other with common courtesy and decency.

The Court of Appeals refused to agree that Thomas was in contempt because of the vague language and the unfairness of giving Thomas thousands of dollars of bills years later.

The bottom line?

Don’t try to write your own agreement. It usually will result in a problem.

It’s the same reason, I hire a plumber when I need one.