Alvin Lorenzo Mazie, Sr. v. Deonka Boozier-Mazie

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-CA-00470-COA

ALVIN LORENZO MAZIE, SR. APPELLANT

v.

DEONKA BOOZIER-MAZIE APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/10/2023
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. TAMETRICE EDRICKA HODGES
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT,
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: M. JUDITH BARNETT
HEATHER LYNN HALL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MATTHEW ALLEN BALDRIDGE
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/01/2024
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ.

LAWRENCE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. In 2021, Alvin Mazie and Deonka Mazie’s divorce was finalized in the Hinds County

Chancery Court. In 2023, Deonka filed a motion to enforce the judgment and hold Alvin in

contempt because she had not received all the property distribution from Alvin to which she

was entitled based on the chancellor’s judgment. The chancellor granted the motion and

held Alvin in contempt. Alvin filed a motion for a new trial that the chancellor denied.

Alvin appeals, asserting the chancellor’s orders contained several mistakes regarding

estimations of value, violated the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution by

holding the title to his vehicle, and erroneously created a bailment with Hinds County as a
bailee for the payments Alvin was required to make. Following a thorough review of the

record—and noting this appeal is from a judgment of contempt rather than the order of

divorce—we affirm the chancellor’s order of contempt and order denying a new trial.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Alvin and Deonka Mazie were married on April 11, 2009. The couple separated on

November 30, 2020, “although they both still reside[d] in the marital residence.” On January

6, 2021, Deonka filed a complaint for divorce in the Hinds County Chancery Court. The

chancellor at this time was the Honorable Denise Owens. On June 8, 2021, Alvin and

Deonka agreed to a divorce and consented to an equitable distribution of their marital assets

by the chancellor. During the marriage, Alvin and Deonka started a church and over the

course of their marriage purchased approximately ten different pieces of real estate.

Following a hearing, the divorce was finalized on June 28, 2021, and the chancery court

divided the parties’ real and personal property. The distribution order stated that Alvin was

entitled to $417,884.01, and Deonka was entitled to $313,172.17. The original distribution

order also stated that both Alvin and Deonka were “to execute all deeds, titles, contracts, and

conveyances necessary to comply with these findings of fact.”1

¶3. On July 8, 2021, Alvin filed a motion to alter and amend/correct that order. On the

same day, Deonka also filed a motion to amend/correct the final order of divorce. On

February 28, 2022, Chancellor Owens corrected a scrivener’s error to clarify two of the

1
The record on appeal does not contain any transcripts or filings prior to this “order
and judgment” of divorce. Therefore, we do not know, and consequently will not address,
the procedural history prior to the divorce.

2
divisions of real property. In addition, the chancellor denied Alvin’s request to classify

Deonka’s Thrift Savings plan as a marital asset. Chancellor Owens announced her retirement

in 2022.2 She was succeeded by the Honorable Tametrice Hodges.

¶4. On January 20, 2023, Deonka filed motions to enforce the judgment, to set a hearing,

and to hold Alvin in contempt or, in the alternative, to partition property “against” Alvin.

Deonka stated that while she “received a portion of the cash and property allocated to her,

she ha[d] not received all of it,” including a list of the amounts she was still due. Deonka

stated in her motion that Alvin still owed her approximately $153,262.86 for the marital

distribution. On February 15, 2023, Alvin’s counsel filed an entry of appearance in the

cause. On March 3, 2023, Alvin filed a response. On the same day of his response filing,

Alvin also filed an agreed order substituting his counsel.

¶5. On March 6, 2023, a hearing was held on the motion for contempt and to enforce the

judgment. Both Alvin and Deonka testified at the hearing. Alvin stated that he was having

difficulty selling some of the properties and that it was “difficult to communicate with”

Deonka. He also testified that some of the properties had “burned.” He explained that he

spent some of the proceeds from the fires or sales on various things, including donations to

charity and $100,000 on a new Chevrolet Corvette. Further, he testified he had transferred

titles to two properties, one to his sister and one to his daughter.

2
This does not seem to be included in the record before us. Finding it “helpful and
appropriate” in this context, we take judicial notice of the year in which the previous
chancellor retired. Jourdan River Ests. LLC v. Favre, 278 So. 3d 1135, 1145 (¶37) (Miss.
2019) (“The Court is authorized to take judicial notice of any information helpful and
appropriate, including official public documents, records and publications.” (citing Enroth
v. Mem’l Hosp. at Gulfport, 566 So. 2d 202, 205 (Miss. 1990)).

3
¶6. On March 10, 2023, Chancellor Hodges granted Deonka’s motion for contempt,

stating that Alvin’s “default was willful.” The order explained that “[a]fter valuing each

item, the [c]ourt clearly awarded both the Defendant and the Plaintiff half of the majority of

[property] items. . . . For the properties not awarded equally, the [c]ourt provided an

explanation.” To conclude, the chancellor held that Alvin had shown a “willful refusal to

comply” with the order “despite his ability to pay a few months prior to the Plaintiff filing

this contempt action.” Further, “despite having the ability to comply, [Alvin] transferr[ed]

title to a few of the properties to his family members instead of selling and providing the

Plaintiff with her awarded amount, purchasing a vehicle costing $100,000, donating money

to a charity, purchasing and rehabilitating additional properties, and storing money in a

business account[] in an effort to mislead the [c]ourt regarding his financial position.” The

chancellor ordered that Alvin “post bond in the amount of $9,000 with the Chancery

Court[,]” pay Deonka the monies she was still owed, see infra ¶8, and pay Deonka’s

attorney’s fees “in the amount of $5,000.”3

¶7. On March 16, 2023, Alvin filed a motion for a new trial alleging that “prejudicial

errors” were made at the contempt hearing and that “mistakes of law and fact” were

contained in the order for contempt. See M.R.C.P. 59. On March 24, 2023, Deonka filed a

motion for Alvin to be taken into custody, to have her allocated property seized, and to find

Alvin in further contempt.4 Of note, she alleged that Alvin had “squandered thousands of

3
The amounts were due on different dates.
4
Based on the record before us, it appears the chancellor did not rule on this motion.

4
dollars” on the Corvette rather than paying her what she was owed. On March 29, 2023,

another hearing was held. Counsel for Alvin argued that the original order for divorce did

not say who “was supposed to sell that property and then divide the money.”

¶8. On March 29, 2023, the same day as the hearing, the chancellor denied Alvin’s motion

for a new trial and amended the original order of contempt to correct scrivener’s errors. The

amended order required a reduced payment of $6,500 on the bond and ordered Alvin to make

a partial payment of $60,523.06 to Deonka on the day the order was entered. The court

separated the remaining payment of $60,523.06 into two payments. The first payment of

$30,261.54 was due on June 14, 2023, and the second payment of $30,261.54 was due on

September 14, 2023. The amended order also required Alvin to “turn over title to the Chevy

Corvette he purchased with funds obtained in September 2022.” Continuing, the order

stated, “[T]itle to the aforementioned vehicle shall be held in trust by the Court until [Alvin]

has paid the remaining balance of $60,523.06 in full.” On April 25, 2023, Alvin filed a

notice of appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶9. We generally apply a “limited standard of review” in appeals from the chancery court.

McNeil v. Hester, 753 So. 2d 1057, 1063 (¶21) (Miss. 2000) (citing Reddell v. Reddell, 696

So. 2d 287, 288 (Miss. 1997)). We “will not overturn a chancellor’s findings of fact when

supported by substantial evidence unless an erroneous legal standard [was] applied or [the

chancellor was] manifestly wrong.” Grafe v. Olds, 556 So. 2d 690, 692 (Miss. 1990),

superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in A.H. v. K.M. (Adoption of A.M.),

5
323 So. 3d 509, 514 (¶27) (Miss. 2021). We review the instant case involving a chancellor’s

decision for abuse of discretion. McNeil, 753 So. 2d at 1063 (¶21) (citing Church of God

Pentecostal Inc. v. Freewill Pentecostal Church of God Inc., 716 So. 2d 200, 204 (Miss.

1998)).

ANALYSIS

¶10. On appeal, Alvin argues that (1) Chancellor Hodges erred in her determination of the

property values at stake, (2) the order that Alvin relinquish title to his automobile violated

his constitutional rights, and (3) the chancellor did not have the power to create a bailment

in which Hinds County was the bailee concerning title to his car.

¶11. Alvin’s first argument alleges that Chancellor Hodges made a “mistake of law, or

misrepresentation, of the Judgment of Divorce . . . and the Order of the Court Regarding

Motion to Amend/Clarify Final Judgment of Divorce . . . regarding the values of the

property.” Particularly, he notes that “there were no appraisals used to determine the value

of any personal, or real, property.” He also appears to assert that Chancellor Hodges

“imputed her opinion for that of Judge Owens” once she took over the case. It is important

to note that this appeal is from an order of contempt, not from the original order distributing

the marital estate. Here, Alvin was found in contempt for failing to comply with the terms

of the original order of distribution. Alvin never appealed from the order the previous

chancellor entered concerning the distribution of the marital estate.

¶12. “In a case where the alleged contempt consisted of the failure to comply with the

terms of the court order or decree, an inquiry into the merits of the order or decree will not

6
be permitted.” McPhail v. McPhail, 357 So. 3d 602, 609 (¶38) (Miss. 2023) (citing Ladner

v. Ladner, 206 So. 2d 620, 623 (Miss. 1968), abrogated on other grounds by Bubac v.

Boston, 600 So. 2d 951, 954-55 (Miss. 1992)). In Mississippi Chancery Practice, an oft-

quoted treatise on this state’s chancery court jurisprudence, it is noted:

He who disobeys the orders of a court of general jurisdiction does so at his
peril. It is no answer that the judgment was improvidently or erroneously
granted, however erroneous or improvident it may be.

Mississippi Chancery Practice § 35:18 (2024-2025 ed.). The Mississippi Supreme Court has

characterized the same principle: “A party to a suit and/or his attorney should not be allowed

to violate an order and collaterally attack it on appeal after they were sanctioned for the

violation.” McPhail, 357 So. 3d at 609 (¶38) (citing Tinnon v. Martin, 716 So. 2d 604, 610

(Miss. 1998)).

¶13. Our appellate courts have “consistently held that the inquiry in a contempt proceeding

is limited to whether or not the order was violated, whether or not it was possible to carry out

the order of the court, and if it was possible, whether or not such violation was an intentional

and willful refusal to abide by the order of the court.” Ellis v. Ellis, 840 So. 2d 806, 811

(¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Ladner, 206 So. 2d at 623). There are only two defenses

to a contempt violation: “the inability to comply with the court’s order . . . or that the court

order was unclear.” Id. (citing McCracking v. Champaigne, 805 So. 2d 586, 589 (¶6) (Miss.

Ct. App. 2001); Davis v. Davis, 829 So. 2d 712, 714 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)). In the case

at bar, nothing within the record indicates that the parties were unable to comply with the

order or that its provisions were unclear. See id. “The fact that such order is erroneous or

7
irregular or improvidently rendered does not justify a person in failing to abide by its terms.”

Id. (citing Ladner, 206 So. 2d at 623). As such, “there is no defense for a contempt citation

that the contemnor does not agree with the previous order and considers the order of the court

decree to be wrong, even though his motives in so doing are based upon pure moral

sentiment.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted).

¶14. Alvin also argues that the chancellor’s order “violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth

Amendment of the United States Constitution” as well as the Fourteenth Amendment’s due

process clause. The order specifically required Alvin to “turn over title to the Chevy

Corvette he purchased with funds obtained in September 2022” until he paid the remaining

balance he owed to Deonka. Alvin received approximately $400,000 from the sale of one

of their properties in September 2022. At the time he received those funds, he was under

court order to provide Deonka $14,100 from property as marital distribution.5 Instead of

paying Deonka what he was ordered to pay, Alvin spent approximately $100,000 on a new

Chevrolet Corvette.6 The following exchange occurred between Alvin and the chancellor:

THE COURT: So at that time, you got a big lump sum of money, so you
actually had the money to pay her for everything the
[c]ourt ordered her at that point?
[ALVIN]: Yes.
....

5
This specific property was 136 Jackson Street in Hazlehurst, Mississippi. The
chancellor used the property’s purchase price instead of the estimated value. In total, the
property was valued at $31,550, and Alvin and Deonka were each entitled to half of that
sum, totaling $14,100 each.
6
Deonka asserted that Alvin owed her $112,768.86 for her portion of the real
property’s equitable distribution at this time.

8
THE COURT: [Y]ou never made any efforts to pay to give [Deonka]
any monies from that [$400,000] as ordered by the
[c]ourt?
[ALVIN]: I didn’t make any. Right. I’m sorry.
THE COURT: You still didn’t make any efforts to pay [Deonka] the
amount ordered by the [c]ourt?
[ALVIN]: Yes, ma’am. We’re going to make sure we get some of
this done as soon as, you know.

¶15. Applicable here through the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, the

Fifth Amendment “guarantees that private property shall not be taken for public use without

just compensation.” See Gilich v. Miss. St. Highway Comm’n, 574 So. 2d 8, 11 (Miss. 1990)

(citing U.S. const. amend. V). The Mississippi Constitution “provides broader protection of

private property rights[.]” Id. That relevant provision provides:

Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use, except on due
compensation being first made to the owner or owners thereof, in a manner to
be prescribed by law; and whenever an attempt is made to take private property
for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be
public shall be a judicial question, and, as such, determined without regard to
legislative assertion that the use is public.

Miss. Const. art. 3, § 17. Alvin claims the chancery court’s order to provide the title to the

Corvette violated those constitutional rights because the court’s action amounted to a taking

of his property. It should be noted that the court never took possession of the Corvette;

rather, Alvin was required to entrust the title of the Corvette to the court.

¶16. In the case of Gardiner v. Gardiner, 230 Miss. 778, 93 So. 2d 638 (1957), the

Mississippi Supreme Court was faced with a similar issue. Gardiner involved a separation

of a couple wherein the wife filed a bill for “separate maintenance” after the husband had

“failed and refused to provide funds for her separate support[.]” Id. at 783-84, 93 So. 2d at

9
640. The cause was brought before a chancery court and the husband was ordered to,

amongst other things, “place in the registry of the court 100 shares of common stock . . .

which he owned at the time the decree was entered, as security for the payment of the sums

ordered to be paid to the [wife].” Id. at 785, 93 So. 2d at 640. The husband appealed and

argued several issues, but notably here, he alleged the decision requiring him to provide the

court his shares of “common stocks listed on the New York exchange of the value of

approximately $90,000” was made in error. Id. at 783, 93 So. 2d at 639. The supreme court

ultimately held that “[t]he chancellor had a right . . . to require the [husband] to deposit in the

registry of the court specific securities, to insure the payment of all sums ordered to be paid

to the [wife], . . . and if necessary[,] . . . may later order the stocks sold for the payment of

the amounts due, or make such other orders as may be necessary to protect the rights of the

wife.” Id. at 786, 93 So. 2d at 641.

¶17. While that case did not involve an appeal of an order of contempt, it is nonetheless

applicable here. The supreme court cloaked the Gardiner chancellor with the legal authority

to accept into the registry of the court property from a noncompliant party as security for

what the party owed until an order of the court was complied with. We find that Alvin’s

argument falls short because of the clear legal precedent set in Gardiner. The chancellor in

this case was faced with the dilemma of Deonka not receiving the payments which had been

ordered because of Alvin’s failure to comply with that order. Alvin argued here that he

lacked the ability to pay the amount owed to Deonka. Yet, the $100,000 Chevrolet Corvette

had been purchased after the divorce when he was in noncompliance with the court’s order

10
of distribution.

¶18. The chancellor was trying to ensure compliance with a legitimate court order and

prevent any potential dissipation of an asset purchased with funds that should have been used

to partially comply with that order. This is simply not a taking of property within the

meaning of the state or federal constitution. This Court would also point out that the car was

not taken away from Alvin but instead the title to the car. The chancellor’s order clearly

stated that the title would be “held in trust” by the court until the remaining balance he owed

to Deonka was “paid in full.” Alvin held the keys to the car—both literally and figuratively.

All he had to do was what he had previously been ordered to do by a court of this state. The

chancellor was well within her rights to order Alvin to do so as “[a]ll courts possess the

inherent authority to control the proceedings before them including the conduct of the

participants.” Macvaugh v. State, 385 So. 3d 443, 451 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting

Aeroglide Corp. v. Whitehead, 433 So. 2d 952, 953 (Miss. 1983)); see also Wyssbrod v.

Wittjen, 798 So. 2d 352, 359-60 (¶27) (Miss. 2001) (“An act committed in disregard of a

court order is a contempt of that court and is within the inherent power of the court to

punish.”) (citing Purvis v. Purvis, 657 So. 2d 794, 798 (Miss. 1994)).

¶19. Finally, Alvin argues against Hinds County’s position of a “bailee” over his private

property. He alleges that “[w]hen Chancellor Hodges made Alvin turn in his title to his car,

she did so with the intent of depriving him of the privilege of driving and to use the Corvette

as collateral.” Alvin claims that “[t]here is no law that allows a Chancellor to become a

bailee to a litigant, nor does she have the authority to bind Hinds County, Mississippi, to a

11
debt to a private person.” Additionally, he claims that “taking a person's vehicle, or title,

from them makes them a bailee and, if something happens to the vehicle, then the liability

of fixing said vehicle falls on Hinds County, Mississippi.”

¶20. His argument, less than one page long, ends with a citation: State Highway Comm’n

v. Mason, 192 Miss. 576, 6 So. 2d 468, 469 (1942). Yet, Alvin does not quote or paraphrase

any particular reference to the Mason case, nor does he make any argument as to how it

applies or stands as authority to the situation in this appeal. Mason discusses due

compensation and liability but does not involve similar circumstances to the case at bar. This

Court is not in the business of speculation or making assumptions as to litigants’ arguments

before this Court.

¶21. Rule 28(a)(7) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure requires an appellant’s

argument to “contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issues presented, and

the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the

record relied on.” This rule “does not simply require a party to mention authority; the

authority must be used to develop the argument in a meaningful way.” Reading v.

Reading, 350 So. 3d 1195, 1199 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (emphasis added) (quoting

Walker v. State, 197 So. 3d 914, 919 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)). “[I]n the absence of

meaningful argument and citation of authority, appellate courts generally will not consider

the assignment of error.” Id. at (¶22) (quoting Patton v. State, 109 So. 3d 66, 75 (¶22) (Miss.

2012)). Alvin’s assertions are not supported by authority, nor is there any meaningful

argument on this issue. The citation to one case with only general application but without

12
any meaningful argument is simply inadequate for this Court to consider. This issue is

procedurally barred. Even if we were to consider the argument, it would be resolved

according to Gardiner and fail, just as his Takings Clause argument fails.

CONCLUSION

¶22. Following a complete and thorough review of the record with our limited standard of

review in chancery cases in mind, we find no error and thus affirm the chancellor’s order of

contempt and the order denying a new trial.

¶23. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., McDONALD, McCARTY,
SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR. WESTBROOKS, J., NOT
PARTICIPATING.

13