DocketNumber: S97A1454
Judges: Sears
Filed Date: 1/12/1998
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/7/2024
We granted the discretionary application filed by the appellant to consider whether the trial court, in holding him in contempt, exceeded its authority in two respects. We conclude that it did.
First, because the weekly incarceration imposed on the appellant by Paragraph 7 of the trial court’s order cannot be purged by compliance with the trial court’s payment schedule, the purpose of the imprisonment is punishment and the contempt is thus criminal.*
In addition to the criminal contempt discussed above, the trial court also found the appellant in civil- contempt, ordered him to pay $500 in attorney fees for this contempt action, and ordered that he be immediately incarcerated unless he pay that award. We have recently held, however, that if an award of attorney fees is not part of any prior order, a trial court may not make “payment of the attorney fees a condition for purging the contempt without first allowing [the contemnor] a reasonable time to pay the fees.”
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
See Thedieck v. Thedieck, 220 Ga. App. 764, 766 (1) (470 SE2d 265) (1996); Ensley v. Ensley, 239 Ga. 860, 861-862 (238 SE2d 920) (1977).
Gay v. Gay, 268 Ga. 106 (1) (485 SE2d 187) (1997); OCGA § 15-6-8 (5).
Gay, 268 Ga. at 107 (1).
Gay, 268 Ga. at 106-107 (1); OCGA § 15-6-8 (5).
Gay, 268 Ga. at 107 (2). Accord Thedieck, 220 Ga. App. at 766.