chancellor’s finding where it is supported by substantial credible evidence.” Varner v. Varner, 666 So.2d 493, 496 (Miss. 1995) (quoting Shipley v. Ferguson, 638 So.2d 1295, 1297 (Miss. 1994)). ¶47. This Court has held that “[a] defendant may avoid a judgment of contempt by establishing that he is without present ability to discharge his obligation.” Gebetsberger v. East, 627 So.2d 823, 826 (Miss. 1993). While “a citation for contempt is proper only when the contemner has willfully and deliberately ignored the order or the court” (Stevison v. Woods, 560 So.2d 176, 180 (Miss. 1990) (emphasis in original)), if the contemnor raises inability to pay as a defense, the burden is on him to show this with particularity, not just in general terms. Morreale v. Morreale, 646 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (<HOLDING>). Here, the court clarified that parts of the
holding that the code excepts from discharge debts resulting from agreements by the debtor to hold the debtors spouse harmless on joint debts to the extent those debts are in the nature of alimony maintenance or support holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes holding sanctions order was too general to support award holding absent statutory authority a trial court could not order the department to pay for longterm therapy by a specific therapist and any and all necessary evaluations for the dependent child holding that an order for a husband to pay all but three specific debts was not too ambiguous for compliance