Background
Brian and Jessica Pelfrey divorced on June 13, 2024, after a marriage that began in 2001. Their agreed divorce decree — supplemented by a nunc pro tunc entry on June 21, 2024, to attach exhibits inadvertently omitted — designated certain personal property to Jessica under Exhibit V and ordered Brian, who retained possession of the marital residence during the proceedings, to cooperate with Jessica in securing those items. Some of the property was located at the marital residence; additional items were stored at the residence of Brian’s parents.
Despite repeated attempts by Jessica to schedule a time to retrieve her property, Brian repeatedly promised to deliver it but never did. In late July or early August 2024, Brian moved Jessica’s property from his parents’ home to the barn at the marital residence — but never told Jessica. The marital home sold at auction on July 26, 2024, with a closing date of September 5, 2024. On August 10, 2024, Brian granted the new buyers access to the barn; a video taken that day confirmed Jessica’s property was present. When Jessica accessed the barn the day after closing, the property was gone. The new owners denied removing it, and there was no sign of a break-in.
On October 10, 2024, Jessica moved for contempt and attorney fees. A magistrate recommended Brian be held in contempt, sentenced to 30 days in jail, fined $250, and ordered to pay $200 in attorney fees and court costs, with a purge condition requiring him to deliver all of Jessica’s property undamaged within seven days. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, overruled Brian’s objections on October 3, 2025, and imposed the same sanctions. Brian appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed the contempt finding on both assignments of error. On the first — whether the trial court abused its discretion — the court held that Jessica established a prima facie case of civil contempt by clear and convincing evidence: a valid court order existed requiring Brian’s cooperation, and Brian undisputedly failed to comply by never notifying Jessica that her property had been moved to the barn and by refusing to coordinate a pickup despite her repeated requests. The burden then shifted to Brian to prove his inability to comply was real and not self-imposed, and he failed to carry it. The court reasoned that even if Brian genuinely did not know what ultimately happened to the missing items, any impossibility of compliance was of his own making — had he cooperated when ordered, Jessica would have received her property before it disappeared.
On the second assignment of error — manifest weight of the evidence — the court found no miscarriage of justice. The trial court expressly found Brian’s testimony that he did not know what happened to the property not credible, a credibility determination within the trier of fact’s exclusive province. Brian’s own admissions — that he never told Jessica the property was in the barn and never arranged a transfer despite her requests — independently supported the contempt finding regardless of whose version of events was believed.
The court also addressed Brian’s attempt to shift blame to Jessica by arguing she knew the barn combination and could have retrieved her property herself. The court rejected this argument, crediting Jessica’s uncontradicted testimony that she had been afraid to return to the marital home without Brian’s cooperation since a 2021 incident in which Brian blocked her vehicle, poured accelerant on a fire pit next to her car, and lit it, prompting a 911 call.
Key Takeaways
- A party ordered to “cooperate” in transferring property under a divorce decree cannot satisfy that obligation by silently moving property to a new location without notifying the other party — affirmative communication is required.
- Where a party’s own non-compliance causes the property to go missing, any later claim of impossibility of performance is self-imposed and will not excuse the contempt.
- A trial court’s credibility determinations — including explicit findings that a contemnor’s testimony is not credible — are entitled to deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless the evidence weighs heavily against the judgment.
- Evidence of prior threatening or intimidating conduct by the obligor party is relevant to explain why the obligee did not attempt self-help retrieval of property, undermining a “she could have gotten it herself” defense.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that divorce decree property-transfer obligations carry an affirmative duty of communication and cooperation, not merely passive availability. Attorneys advising clients subject to property-transfer orders should counsel them that moving assets without notification — even without disposing of them — exposes them to contempt liability if the property later cannot be located.
The case also illustrates how prior domestic violence or threatening conduct can bear on contempt proceedings well after the underlying events: Jessica’s justifiable fear from the 2021 barn incident directly rebutted Brian’s argument that she bore responsibility for failing to retrieve her own property. Courts in enforcement proceedings will look at the full relational context, not just the mechanics of who had theoretical access to what.