In June 2025, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a decision in Collins v. Holley that every family law attorney—and every parent navigating support disputes—should know. The case is a textbook example of what happens when trial courts stretch civil contempt beyond its intended limits.
At its heart, the ruling reminds us: civil contempt is designed to enforce compliance, not to punish or rewrite prior orders.
The Background
Lisa Collins and Corey Holley, parents of one child, were already embroiled in litigation over custody, support, and attorney’s fees:
- Custody: Holley (father) was awarded custody; Collins (mother) received visitation.
- Support: Collins owed $795/month in child support and $3,500 in “past-prospective” support.
- Attorney’s Fees: Collins was ordered to pay $30,000 at $2,500/month.
When Collins missed her first $2,500 fee payment, Holley filed for contempt. The trial court went further than enforcement—it increased her obligations (raising fees to $51,600, support to $6,000) and even set automatic jail time if she missed future payments .
Collins appealed.
The Court of Appeals’ Findings
- Lack of Evidence on Ability to Pay
The trial court assumed Collins could meet her obligations, but her income (~$3,600/month) was already consumed by child support and basic expenses. Without evidence of her ability to pay, contempt could not stand. - Misuse of Civil Contempt
Civil contempt requires willful noncompliance and the present ability to comply. As the Court put it: “A person does not act willfully if compliance is out of his or her power.” - Improper Modification Through Contempt
By raising Collins’ financial obligations, the trial court effectively modified prior orders. That is not the role of contempt—it is limited to enforcement, not modification. - Unlawful Purge Conditions
Collins was told she could “purge” contempt by paying more than the original order required. This violated the principle that contemnors must hold the keys to their own jail—compliance must be achievable under the original order. - Automatic Jail Time
The appellate court also struck down automatic incarceration provisions. Jail can only be imposed after a fresh determination of present ability to comply, not by blanket future directives.
Why Collins v. Holley Matters
1. Ability to Pay Is Crucial
Courts cannot assume parties can borrow, sell assets, or “find” money. Evidence—not speculation—must show the ability to comply.
2. Contempt Is Not Modification
If an order is unfair or unworkable, the proper route is a motion to modify—not rewriting obligations under the guise of contempt.
3. Safeguards Against Overreach
This case reinforces that appellate courts will intervene when trial judges go too far. Families under financial strain now have stronger protections against impossible orders.
4. Fee Awards Under the Microscope
Attorney’s fee awards must be backed by solid evidence of each party’s financial circumstances, and enforcement must respect those realities.
Key Takeaway
The Court of Appeals reversed the contempt order in its entirety, restoring balance to the enforcement process. Collins v. Holley reaffirms that civil contempt is a narrow, carefully limited tool: it cannot expand obligations, impose unattainable purge conditions, or shortcut due process .
Conclusion
For parents navigating support or fee disputes, this case is a powerful reminder: courts must ground contempt in evidence and fairness, not assumptions or punishment.
At Adkins Law, PLLC, we help families across Huntersville and the Lake Norman area and beyond handle custody, support, contempt, and appeals with skill and compassion. If you are facing overwhelming obligations or an enforcement action, we are here to protect your rights and guide you through the process.
📞 Contact us today to schedule a consultation with a Huntersville family law attorney.
