Appeals court upholds fees, tosses part of contempt appeal

The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, upheld attorney’s fees and dismissed part of an appeal Aug. 7 in a post-divorce dispute over unpaid business debt from Cole County.

The case stems from a divorce judgment between plaintiff Renee T. Vaught, also known as Renee Lepper and Renee Wilde, and defendant Shawn Vaught. The two were married in Cole County in 1996, and Lepper filed for divorce from Vaught in 2014. Vaught was incarcerated at the time.

Part of the parties’ divorce judgment apportioned one marital debt, a Capital Chrysler debt, to Lepper, and all business debt to Vaught. From June 2022 to January 2024, Lepper filed a total of three contempt motions, alleging that her ex-spouse had failed to pay the debts assigned to him in the divorce judgment, including a Small Business Administration loan.

Lepper claimed she was harmed by Vaught’s failure to pay, since over $3,250 had been garnished from her wages for the SBA loan. She also alleged the U.S. Department of Treasury issued a wage garnishment order for more than $64,150 due to the unpaid loan, along with interest and penalties. In her argument, she also stated the Internal Revenue Service made multiple withholdings from 2016 to 2022 from her income tax returns to repay money related to a 2008 income tax return connected to Vaught’s loan and debt.

In her first contempt motion, Lepper asked the circuit court to commit Vaught to jail unless he paid the outstanding SBA loan balance, garnished wages, withheld tax refunds and attorney’s fees. In December 2022, the court found Vaught had “willfully and intentionally” failed to comply with the divorce judgment and ordered him to pay more than $32,000 to cover garnished wages, withheld refunds, and legal expenses.

Lepper filed a second contempt motion in March 2023, asserting Vaught still had not paid. In May, the court again found him in contempt and ordered an initial lump sum payment followed by monthly installments. An order of commitment was issued in June, directing his arrest unless he posted the lump sum as a cash bond. The court withdrew the order in August after confirming payment.

In January 2024, Lepper filed a third contempt motion, stating her wages continued to be garnished and the Treasury Department had withheld her and her husband’s 2022 tax refund. She asked the court to again find Vaught in contempt, order repayment of all amounts garnished and withheld, and authorize “any and all means” to enforce the judgment, including jail commitment.

Vaught filed a motion to dismiss the third contempt motion under res judicata, arguing the third motion sought “to again have (Vaught) held in contempt for the failure to pay the exact same debt” from the first motion, with the only difference being the additional money allegedly garnished from Lepper since then.

The circuit court denied Vaught’s dismissal motion, finding that since December 2022, Lepper had continued to suffer financial harm due to Vaught’s failure to pay the loan and related debt in violation of the 2014 dissolution judgment. The court noted that more than $30,000 had been taken from Lepper’s wages and intercepted from her tax refunds during that period. It further found that Vaught had willfully and intentionally refused to comply with the terms of the 2014 judgment and that Lepper had incurred more than $3,600 in attorney’s fees and expenses. As a result, the court held Vaught in contempt and ordered him to pay Lepper a total of $33,704.75 within 60 days to cover the garnished wages, withheld tax refunds and her legal costs. Vaught appealed on two points, landing the case before the appellate court.

In his first point, Vaught argued the circuit court erred in its judgment on the third contempt motion due to res judicata. However, the court noted that actual enforcement, not just the threat of enforcement, is required for a contempt judgment to be final. In this case, the judgment ordered Vaught to pay Lepper $33,704.75 within 60 days, but the record showed no attempt by Lepper to execute on the judgment after nonpayment.

“Although the issuance of an order of commitment is also sufficient to enforce a contempt judgment, here, the circuit court only issued such an order in connection with its second contempt judgment and that order was later withdrawn,” the opinion stated. “As a result, the contempt judgment remains interlocutory and unappealable.”

In his second point, Vaught claimed the circuit court erred in awarding Lepper attorney’s fees, arguing the court abused its discretion since it didn’t consider the parties’ incomes, whether his failure to pay was willful or the reasonableness of the fees. He claimed he believed in good faith that the amounts sought were not owed and that a prior court order had ended his payment obligation. However, the appeals court noted that, even if res judicata applied to the third contempt motion, it would not eliminate his responsibility to pay the debt.

The third contempt judgment found Lepper had continued to suffer harm since December 2022, with more than $30,000 garnished from her wages and intercepted from tax refunds. The court also found Vaught had willfully refused to comply with the 2014 dissolution judgment and that Lepper had incurred $3,665.73 in attorney’s fees.

“The circuit court’s award of attorney’s fees is presumptively correct, and, without any evidence to the contrary, we presume the circuit court considered all relevant factors in awarding attorney’s fees,” stated the opinion. “There is nothing in the record to indicate that the circuit court did not consider all relevant factors such as Vaught’s ability to pay and Lepper’s financial need.”

The case is Renee T. Vaught (A/K/A Renee Lepper, A/K/A Renee Wilde) v. Shawn Vaught, Case No. WD87742.