OTT LAW

In Re the Marriage of: Wilbert McGee, Respondent, v. Shirley McGee, Appellant.

Decision date: UnknownED75848

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: In Re the Marriage of: Wilbert McGee, Respondent, v. Shirley McGee, Appellant. Case Number: ED75848 Handdown Date: 02/15/2000 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Joseph Goeke, III Counsel for Appellant: Melvin L. Raymond Counsel for Respondent: Steven M. Cohen Opinion Summary: The wife appeals from the trial court judgment finding her in civil contempt and awarding the husband attorney's fees. JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT DISMISSED; JUDGMENT AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AFFIRMED. Division Four holds: (1) Because the wife purged herself of contempt, that part of judgment adjudging her in contempt is not appealable. (2) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the husband. Citation: Opinion Author: William H. Crandall, Jr., Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: PART OF JUDGMENT ADJUDGING CONTEMPT DISMISSED. PART OF JUDGMENT AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES AFFIRMED. Hoff, J. and Crist, Sr. J., concur. Opinion: Wife, Shirley McGee, appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding her in civil contempt and awarding husband, Wilbert McGee, attorney's fees. We dismiss the appeal from that portion of the judgment finding wife in contempt and affirm that portion of the judgment awarding husband attorney's fees.

On May 5, 1998, the trial court entered a decree of dissolution of the parties' marriage awarding certain items of personal property to husband. On September 9, 1998, husband brought an action to enforce the judgment, because wife refused him access to the property awarded to him in the decree. The trial court issued an order entitling husband to go onto the premises of the marital home on October 5, 1998, from 9:00 a.m. until 1 p.m. to remove that property. After spending some time searching the premises, husband left without a chain saw, a table saw, and some books, because he could not locate them. He also left his truck in the driveway of the marital home, which wife later had towed. Husband filed the present motion to enforce judgment and/or to hold wife in contempt. After a hearing, the trial court held wife in contempt for failing to comply with the court's order. The court sentenced wife to imprisonment until she paid $1,800.00 to husband or otherwise delivered the missing items to him. The court also ordered wife to pay $1,200.00 to husband for attorney's fees incurred in the contempt action. Wife tendered $1,800.00 to husband. Wife appeals. Wife first contends the trial court erred in finding her guilty of contempt. Husband in turn questions the appealability of the trial court's order. Wife's appeal from that part of the trial court's judgment adjudging her in contempt is moot. An appellate court will not review contempt proceedings where the contemnor has complied with the order or has purged herself. Yeager v. Yeager, 622 S.W.2d 339, 343 (Mo. App. 1981). Here, wife paid the $1,800.00 due to husband and thus purged herself of contempt. That part of the judgment finding wife in contempt therefore is not appealable. Wife also challenges that part of the judgment ordering her to pay $1,200.00 to husband for attorney's fees. The trial court has authority to assess attorney's fees in civil contempt cases for willful disobedience of a court order. Yeager, 622 S.W.2d at 343. It is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Id. We find no abuse of discretion here. The appeal from that portion of the judgment holding wife in contempt is dismissed as moot and that portion of the judgment awarding husband attorney's fees is affirmed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Related Opinions

Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,374 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,516 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,993 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,603 words