In re Ivey
California Court of Appeal
85 Cal. App. 4th 793, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 447 (2000)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Shelita Washington (plaintiff) and Artis Ivey (defendant) were parents to three children. Ivey and Washington were parties to a child custody and support proceeding. Prior to trial, Washington petitioned the trial court for an award of attorney and expert fees from Ivey, who had admitted that he was an extraordinarily high-income earner. In September 1997, the trial court ordered Ivey to pay $2,898 in attorney fees and costs by November 10, 1997. On November 19, 1997, Ivey was also ordered to pay $83,265 in attorney and expert fees in six installments. Ivey’s attorney was present in court when the orders were issued by the trial court. However, Ivey failed to make the ordered payments. After the orders were issued by the trial court, a large sum of money was transferred out of Ivey’s bank account. Ivey was personally served with the orders in January 1998. Ivey still did not comply with the orders, and Washington filed a petition with the trial court alleging seven counts of contempt. The trial court issued an order to Ivey to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Ivey made some payments but did not pay the full amount. The trial court found Ivey guilty of seven counts of contempt and sentenced Ivey to 14 days in jail. The trial court suspended all but three days on condition of future compliance. Ivey appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Grignon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
