What has to be Re-addressed in an Equitable Distribution Remand?
August 11, 2014 § Leave a comment
When equitable distribution is reversed and remanded for a do-over, alimony has to be redone also, because the two are inextricably intertwined; as equitable distribution expands, alimony contracts, and vice versa.
But what about child support?
The COA’s decision in Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, handed down July 29, 2014, reminds us that child support and attorney’s fees have to be revisited, as well:
¶47. Deidi argues that the chancellor committed error in the computation of child support and by not awarding her attorney’s fees. As set forth above, in Lauro [v. Lauro, 847 So.2d 843, 850 (¶17) (Miss. 2003)], the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that since the case was remanded for further consideration of equitable division, the chancellor should be instructed “to revisit the awards of alimony and child support after he has properly classified and divided the marital assets.” Lauro, 847 So.2d at 850 (¶17). Thus, since this case has been remanded for further consideration of equitable division of assets and alimony, on remand, the chancellor will have all the tools of marital dissolution available: equitable division, lump-sum alimony, and periodic alimony. Likewise, the chancellor may revisit the awards of child support and attorney’s fees.
I was aware of the language in Lauro that requires the remand court to look not only at equitable distribution, but also at alimony and any child support. I was unaware that the remand also embraced attorney’s fees. It is logical, though, that the judge on remand, after completing a re-analysis of the division of the marital estate, and after the award of alimony and child support, could arrive at a different conclusion about ability to pay attorney’s fees.
An interesting feature of this case is that the chancellor did not treat a private-school debt, apparently for tuition, as a marital debt. It’s pure speculation on my part, but I will bet that stems from the chancellor’s confusion over how exactly to treat private school expenses. It’s a confused area, with cases going every which way. If we need some bright line guidance in an area, private school expenses is one.
Ravenstein: Sizzle or Fizzle?
July 21, 2014 § 7 Comments
I vote fizzle.
Last December I reported that the MSSC was asking for additional briefing in the case of Ravenstein v. Hawkins ” … addressing whether equal protection would be violated by an interpretation that child support may not be ordered for adult children who are mentally or physically incapable of self-support under Sections 93-5-23 and 93-11-65, given the mandate of Section 43-19-33 that a certain class of people may receive such support …”
To me, that signaled that the high court was preparing to address the troubling issue of parental duty to support adult disabled children. The last MSSC case to address the issue was Hays v. Alexander, in June, 2013, about which I posted here. Back then, I said this:
The MSSC yesterday ruled in Hays v. Alexander that there is nothing in the common law that would empower the court to create a duty in parents to support adult disabled children. The court said at ¶ 15: “The power to grant the authority to require parents in Mississippi to support their adult children is confided to a separate magistry: the Legislature. Our courts are without the constitutional power to declare otherwise.”
The court handed down its adjudication of Ravenstein last Thursday, and, the bottom line is that we are exactly where we were post-Hays v. Alexander.
John and Elisha Ravenstein were divorced from each other in 1998. In the divorce judgment, the chancellor ordered Mr. Ravenstein to pay lifetime child support for his handicapped son, Ryan. The chancellor found that it would be unjust for the child to become a ward of the state upon attaining age 21 when the parents had the financial ability to care for him. John filed a R59 motion, but never appealed.
When Ryan turned 20, his mother filed a petition asking to be appointed Ryan’s conservator. John counterclaimed that he should be appointed conservator, or that both parents be appointed co-conservators.
When Ryan turned 21, John stopped paying child support to Elisha or Ryan, and deposited the money into the registry of the court. He also filed a MRCP 60(b) motion asking the court to find that the 1998 judgment was void as a matter of law, since it improperly extended his child support obligation beyond Ryan’s 21st birthday.
The chancellor ruled in Elisha’s favor on the conservatorship. She also overruled John’s plea for R60 relief. John appealed.
The MSSC, by Justice Waller, affirmed the chancellor’s ruling on the R60 issue, the rationale for which is worth a read. The court reversed and remanded on the appointment of the conservator because the court applied the wrong legal standard.
On the issue of the application of the code sections cited above, the court said:
¶32. After a thorough review of the supplemental briefs filed by the parties and the State, we find that it is unnecessary to address this issue. We find that John waived his right to challenge his child-support obligation when he failed to appeal Chancellor Lutz’s 1998 judgment and waited thirteen years to attack it collaterally. We reach this conclusion without deciding whether Sections 93-5-23 and 93-11-65 of the Mississippi Code should be interpreted to allow for the provision of post-majority support for adult disabled children. The constitutionality of Section 43-19-33(3), which does not apply to the parties here, is not relevant to the disposition of this case. See Kron v. Van Cleave, 339 So. 2d 559, 563 (Miss. 1976) (“It is familiar learning that courts will not decide a constitutional question unless it is necessary to do so in order to decide the case.”).
Thus, when he failed to appeal in 1998, John waived his right of review and the court was deprived of authority to address the issue.
Justice King wrote a brilliantly-reasoned dissenting opinion making a strong case that our law in this area is unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection. If you ever have a case involving this issue, he has written your brief for you.
I think this is an issue that must be addressed eventually. Ravenstein, however, proved not to be the vehicle due to its peculiar procedural posture.
Maybe when the right case goes up Justice King will write the majority opinion.
When is Temporary Relief Available in Family Law Cases?
June 18, 2014 § 5 Comments
I have heard it said that chancery courts routinely grant temporary relief in any matters pending before them. Is that so? And in what matters is temporary relief available?
Let’s look at family law.
Anyone who has done any Mississippi family law knows that temporary relief is available in divorce cases. The authority of the chancery court to grant temporary relief in a divorce proceeding is found in MCA 93-5-17(2), which provides:
The chancellor in vacation may, upon reasonable notice, hear complaints for temporary alimony, temporary custody of children and temporary child support and make all proper orders and judgments thereon.
Divorce is a creature of statute unknown in the common law; therefore, any relief obtainable in a divorce must have its source in a statute. Since this statute is part of the title dealing with divorce, and is a subsection of the statute that requires divorce hearings to be held in open court, I am confident in saying that this particular statute is not authority to grant temporary relief outside the context of a divorce.
Likewise, in cases of determination of parentage, MCA 93-11-65(10) creates a remedy:
Upon motion of a party requesting temporary child support pending a determination of parentage, temporary support shall be ordered if there is clear and convincing evidence of paternity on the basis of genetic testing or other evidence, unless the court makes written findings of fact on the record that the award of temporary support would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case.
Notice that the latter statute does not not include custody among the relief provided. The COA has held that both natural parents have an equal right to custody of the child, regardless whether parentage has been finally determined. So, on the one hand, it would appear in a custody dispute between parents in a parentage case that the tug-of-war between them must continue unabated by temporary custody because there is no provision in the statute for temporary custody. The conundrum is exacerbated by the simple fact that support is customarily (always?) paid to the parent with custody, which is certainly logical, because we have to know where the child will be in order to know where to direct the support. If the court has no statutory authority to award custody in such a case, how can the court award child support?
It could be that the chancellor may simply order extra-statutory temporary relief in a given case based on equitable principles. In the parentage case, for example, the court could award temporary custody in order to get to the statutorily permissible temporary support award.
But would such an order stand? After all, we know that there is no appeal of right from a temporary or interlocutory order.
I think the distinction may lie in the nature of the review. If the merits of the order are attacked, then I think the appeal fails. If the power of the court to grant the temporary relief is attacked, then I think the appeal would have merit. An example of the latter is Martin v. Falcon, #2013-IA-1985-SCT (December 5, 2013), in which Justice Coleman vacated a temporary order granting grandparent visitation.
Is there even a right to a temporary hearing in a grandparent visitation case? I would argue in the negative, for two reasons: (1) the grandparent visitation statute has no provision whatsoever for temporary relief, and like divorce and parentage, it is a creature solely of statute; and (2) to grant temporary relief is to presume on the ultimate issue that the petitioner is entitled to such relief, which is not always so.
Of course, temporary relief is expressly available in injuntions, per MRCP 65, in the form of a TRO. A TRO does require the existence of an emergency or danger of irreparable harm if no relief is immediately granted. And the domestic violence statutes incorporate such relief.
Custody modification cases and third-party custody cases are somewhat more problematical. There are statutes dealing with custody, and its award and forms, but they do not specifically mention temporary relief. In this district, we do not allow temporary relief in a child-custody-modification case unless there is an emergency or it is clearly necessary to protect the best interest of a child until a final determination may be made. To do otherwise would peremptorily adjudicate the ultimate issue in the case.
When the chancellor acts in an emergency or other exigent situation to protect the child, her actions are based on Article 6, § 159 of the Mississippi Constitution, which gives chancery courts “full jurisdiction” over “All matters in equity,” and “Minor’s business.” Custody has long been recognized as being under the mantle of chancery jurisdiction, and, indeed, our cases speak in terms of the chancellor being the “superior guardian” and protector of the child’s best interest. I think as between the apparent form required by statute and the chancellor’s determination that action must be taken for the best interest of a child, the court will and should go with the best interest every time.
I would reconcile all of the foregoing by saying that I believe that, in the absence of exigent circumstances requiring immediate intervention the court should avoid temporary relief unless there is a statutory provision or rule expressly providing that relief. Your chancellor may see it differently, based on an entirely different rationale, but that is the way I view it.
This post addresses temporary relief in family law matters. Temporary relief in the many other types of cases within chancery jurisdiction is the subject of another post.
—————————
Thanks to Attorney George S. Whitten of Greenwood for supplying some of the material for this post.
If Private School Expenses are Included, You Must Say so in the PSA
May 22, 2014 § 3 Comments
Andrea Gaienne and Michael McMillin were divorced from each other in 2007, on the sole ground of irreconcilable differences. They shared joint legal custody, and Michael got “primary physical custody” of the two children, who were then ages 7 and 3. The parties’ PSA included the following language:
3. Child Support and School Expenses. Wife will not be required to pay child support to Husband, as Husband acknowledges and represents unto the Court that he has sufficient income in excess of that set out in the Mississippi Child Support Guidelines to fully support the minor children in his custody without contributions of child support from the Wife. However, Husband and Wife agree that each will pay one-half of any and all daycare expenses, and any other expenses relating to daycare or school, including school supplies, and sports activities for the minor children, including the costs of any uniforms, fees, and travel expenses for sports activities.
. . .
12. College Education and Expenses. Husband will continue payments to the Mississippi Impact for the minor children for their college tuition and Wife agrees to contribute and pay $500.00 per year to the Mississippi Impact fund for the minor childrens’ college tuition beginning in 2007. Husband and Wife further agree that whatever college expenses are not covered by the Mississippi Impact fund, that as such college expenses that are not covered become due, Husband and Wife will discuss and confer with one another as to which are reasonable for college for the minor children, they and will [sic] decide, if possible, the amount that each will pay toward said college expenses, and if they cannot agree, then Husband and Wife agree that the Chancery Court of Warren County will make such decisions regard[ing] the college expenses for the minor children. That this agreement will extend throughout the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or equivalent. This obligation may extend past the twenty-first birthday of either child, but it shall not extend past the twenty-third birthday of either child. Total expenses for which the Husband and Wife may be responsible and may agree on include the following: tuition, room and board, books, student fees, transportation expenses, fraternity or sorority dues, fees or expenses, and a reasonable amount of discretionary spending money. Husband and Wife further agree to consult with one another and with each minor child as to the choice of the appropriate college or university. The college or university shall be selected by the parties and the child, the majority rule.
The seven-year-old was enrolled in public school at the time of the divorce, but, after a bullying incident the parties enrolled him in a private school, sharing the tuition. Andrea thought she and Michael had an agreement that she would be relieved of the Impact payments in consideration of sharing the private school tuition, but when Michael would not acknowledge that in writing, she filed pleadings in chancery court seeking modification or clarification that she was not required by the language of the PSA to contribute to pre-college private school tuition. Michael countered with a contempt action.
The chancellor found that the agreement did require Andrea to contribute to the private school tuition, and found her in contempt. Andrea appealed.
In a ruling handed down May 15, 2014, the MSSC in Gaienne v. McMillin, addressed the issue. Justice Randolph wrote for the majority:
I. Gaiennie is not obligated to pay for private-school tuition.
¶8. “While a chancellor’s decisions in a [domestic] action are reviewed for manifest error, a property settlement agreement is a contract, and contract interpretation is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo.” McFarland v. McFarland, 105 So. 3d 1111, 1118 (Miss. 2013) (citing Harris v. Harris, 988 So. 2d 376, 378 (Miss. 2008)). This Court applies a three-tiered approach to contract interpretation. Facilities, Inc. v. Rogers-Usry Chevrolet, Inc., 908 So.2d 107, 111 (Miss. 2005). First, we apply the “four corners” test, wherein this Court “looks to the language that the parties used in expressing their agreement.” Id. “When construing a contract, we will read the contract as a whole, so as to give effect to all of its clauses.” Id. “On the other hand, if the contract is unclear or ambiguous, the court should attempt to ‘harmonize the provisions in accord with the parties’ apparent intent.” Id. (quoting Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So. 2d 349, 352 (Miss. 1990)). “The mere fact that the parties disagree about the meaning of a provision of a contract does not make the contract ambiguous as a matter of law.” Cherry v. Anthony, Gibbs, Sage, 501 So. 2d 416, 419 (Miss. 1987). Secondly, if the contract is unclear or ambiguous, this Court applies the “discretionary ‘canons’ of contract construction.” Facilities, 908 So. 2d at 111. Thirdly, “if the contract continues to evade clarity as to the parties’ intent, the court should consider extrinsic or parol evidence.” Id.
¶9. Gaiennie argues that, under the terms of the property-settlement agreement, she is not obligated to pay one-half of private-school expenses. Gaiennie points to the absence of the word “tuition” in the “school expenses” provision as a clear and unambiguous indication that precollege private-school tuition was not part of the property-settlement agreement. Gaiennie also argues that there was no consideration of private school at the time the property-settlement agreement was signed. McMillin argues that the plain meaning of the phrase “any other expense related to daycare or school” necessarily encompasses private school tuition, as private-school tuition is a school-related expense.
¶10. We disagree. The absence of any reference to private school or private-school tuition in provision three controls the issue. “When a contract is clear and unambiguous, this Court ‘is not concerned with what the parties may have meant or intended but rather what they said, for the language employed in a contract is the surest guide to what was intended.’” Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So. 2d 329, 335 (Miss. 2000) (citing Shaw v. Burchfield, 481 So. 2d 247, 252 (Miss. 1985)). Looking to the four corners of the agreement, we find that it is not ambiguous. Tuition is conspicuously absent from the “school expenses” provision. (See Zweber v. Zweber, 102 So. 3d 1098, 1101-02 (Miss. 2012) (holding that “flying lessons were not included in the final judgment of divorce).
¶11. Notwithstanding that the plain language of the agreement requires no private-school tuition, if we accepted Gaiennie’s argument that absence of the word “tuition” creates an ambiguity, the result would be no different, for we would first attempt to harmonize the provisions in accord with the parties’ apparent intent. The fact that tuition was specifically included within “college expenses,” but not “school expenses” reveals the parties’ intent that private-school tuition was not intended under the agreement.
¶12. Even if we went beyond the “four-corners test,” and looked to the intent of the parties, Gaiennie would still prevail. Neither party disputes that, at the time the agreement was signed, the eldest child was enrolled in public school. Neither party disputes that, at the time the agreement was signed, it was their intent for the children to attend public school. The children attended public school for nearly three years before a bullying incident prompted consideration of private school. We find that, because private-school tuition was not specified in the agreement, we must reverse the chancellor’s holding requiring Gaiennie to pay for one-half of the children’s private-school tuition.
This decision underscores a recurring theme in PSA-interpretation cases: If you don’t specify that a particular expense is covered by the agreement, don’t assume that the court is going to write that requirement into it for you. This is especially true in cases involving private-school enrollment.
Oh, and notice the reference to Ivison in the opinion. If you click on the link it will take you to a previous post on that case that further highlights the perils of leaving things in an agreement unsaid that really should be said.
A Pro Se Appeal on the Rocks
May 1, 2014 § 4 Comments
Matlock was a 1980’s – 90’s tv drama starring Andy Griffith in the eponymous role as a canny criminal defense lawyer who, more often than not, got his clients acquitted. His courtroom victories were usually the result of brilliant investigation combined with ingenious trial tactics.
Perhaps with that heritage in mind, Heidi Matlock filed a pro se appeal charging that the chancellor was in error when he found her in contempt and in arrears in child support for her minor child in the sum of more than $20,000, and restored the child’s birth certificate to his original given name at birth.
Now, with that narrow adjudication at trial, one would expect the issues assigned on appeal to be pretty straightforward, but Ms. Matlock saw the case much more expansively. Her issues for review:
1. Do the actions of Gordon and Nancy Flake constitute a deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)?
2. Can the Plaintiff seek attorney’s fees and court costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)?
3. Can Gordon and Nancy Flake keep my son against his will, without any permission? (18 U.S.C. § 1201).
4. Why have the Flakes not been arrested for federal kidnapping?
Gordon and Nancy Flake are the paternal grandparents who had custody of the child. The child support action was brought by DHS.
In Matlock v. DHS, Flake and Todd, handed down April 15, 2014, the COA affirmed, pointing out (a) that none of the issues raised on appeal were ever raised before the trial judge, and (b) Heidi cited no authority to support her arguments. Judge Griffis added, “Certainly, this Court does not possess jurisdiction or any authority to consider or address the alleged “federal kidnapping” and federal civil rights violations that Heidi has discussed in her brief.”
Finding no reversible error apparent in the record, the COA affirmed.
Every now and then, someone sends me an email or attempts to post a comment to this blog complaining that lawyers don’t want non-lawyers practicing law because lawyers are protecting their lucrative turf. Cases like this one, however, demonstrate that a person representing himself/herself in a matter such as this can do as serious damage to oneself as a person trying to remove his or her own appendix. And if Ms. Matlock had the assistance of a “shade tree” legal assistant, then that person needs to be held accountable. I’m not saying Ms. Matlock had a meritorous ground for appeal, but even a basically competent lawyer could have advised her about it, and (a) would have assigned grounds for appeal that sounded in the record, and (b) would have cited a case or two, at a minimum, if for no other reason than appearance’s sake.
More Factors for the Court to Address for Child Support
April 22, 2014 § 6 Comments
I think it’s fair to say that in most districts up to now, chancellors have customarily looked at the paying party’s income and set child support at the statutory percentage, unless there is proof to support a deviation.
In most of the case law between the 1989 adoption of the guidelines, it has been held sufficient for the chancellor to address the steps in MCA 43-19-101, followed by an analysis of any deviation criteria, and a conclusion of the amount of child support.
The MSSC decision in Huseth v. Huseth, an imputed income case handed down April 10, 2014, re-emphasizes some criteria that the trial court must address. The court ruled that, although the chancellor did apply the guidelines, she failed to take into account Mike Huseth’s lack of available funds and other pertinent factors bearing on his ability to pay. Here is how Justice Kitchens explained it in his opinion:
¶30. The chancellor granted child support in the amount of $988, as that is fourteen percent of the income of $7,058 the chancellor imputed to Mike … Additionally, the chancellor’s computation of child support based upon a percentage of Mike’s imputed income, using only the statutory guidelines, did not properly reflect Mike’s ability to pay the child support. In awarding child support, the chancellor should consider
1. The health of the husband and his earning capacity.
2. The health of the wife and her earning capacity;
3. The entire sources of income for both parties;
4. The reasonable needs of the wife;
5. The reasonable needs of the child;
6. The necessary living expenses of the husband;
7. The estimated amount of income taxes the respective parties must pay on their incomes;
8. The fact that the wife has the free use of the home, furnishings, and automobile, and
9. Such other facts and circumstances bearing on the subject that might be shown by the evidence.
Gillespie v. Gillespie, 594 So. 2d 620, 622 (Miss. 1992) (emphasis added) (citing Brabham v. Brabham, 226 Miss. 165, 176, 84 So. 2d 147, 153 (1955)).
¶31. “When entering a child support decree, the chancellor should consider all circumstances relevant to the needs of the children and the capacities of the parents.” Tedford v. Dempsey, 437 So. 2d 410, 422 (Miss. 1983) (second emphasis added). Here, the chancellor imputed the living expenses of Mike as income, without offsetting those same expenses in her determination of the money Mike had available to pay child support. She did not consider the necessary living expenses of the husband in computing the amount of child support. Additionally, as noted previously, she failed to outline how much of Mike’s imputed income was based upon his earning potential, and upon what his earning potential was based. Therefore, we reverse the chancellor’s child support award and remand for a determination of child support in which all of the facts and circumstances, including what Mike actually can pay, are taken into account. [Bold added in text]
[Note: the phrase ” … imputed the living expenses as income” refers to the fact that Mike’s parents were giving him money to live on, which funds he applied to his expenses.]
Gillespie is the case that first set out the concept that the child support guidelines are merely guidelines, and it is still up to the judge to determine the need and support required. Many cases in the 25 years since the guideline statutes took effect, however, have treated the guidelines as mandates requiring accurate arithmentic and rigid adherence to the letter of the statutes.
Does Huseth signal a return to a more Gillespie-like approach? Huseth is, after all, a MSSC decision. The Gillespie court said that the award of child support is a matter within discretion of chancellor, and it will not be reversed unless the chancellor was manifestly wrong in his finding of fact or manifestly abused his discretion.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the appellate courts.
In the meantime, you’d better look at those Gillespie factors and make sure your record includes adequate proof to support your client’s side of the issue.
Enforcing the Temporary Order
February 19, 2014 § Leave a comment
Does entry of a final judgment of divorce eliminate the possibility of an action to collect unpaid amounts due under a temporary order?
It’s not uncommon to be getting your waterfowl in a row for final hearing next week only to learn from your client for the first time that her husband owes her a couple of thou in child support or house payments or temporary alimony, and that news is followed by the query ” … and what are you going to do about it?”
So … what are you going to do about it?
In the COA case of O’Brien v. O’Brien, handed down February 11, 2014, Judge Griffis addressed the appellant’s argument that it was improper for the chancellor to find him in contempt of the temporary order after the final judgment of divorce was entered:
¶10. Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-17(2) (Rev. 2013) provides that a chancellor may “hear complaints for temporary alimony, temporary custody of children and temporary child support and make all proper orders and judgments thereon.” Further, this Court may allow retroactive awards of temporary support even after a divorce judgment is entered. Strong v. Strong, 981 So. 2d 1052, 1055 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). Temporary support ends when a final judgment is entered. Bond v. Bond, 355 So. 2d 672, 674-675 (Miss. 1991). However, a payor still has a duty to pay past-due temporary support, as a final decree of divorce does not preclude a chancellor from entering a judgment for arrearages of temporary support without having to express the right to enforce the judgment in the final divorce decree. Lewis v. Lewis, 586 So. 2d 740, 742 (Miss. 1991).
You have several ways to approach enforcement of temporary orders:
- You can wait until the final judgment is entered and file a contempt action. Fair warning: bring your authority (e.g., the above paragraph) with you to court because I have had chancellors question the viability of such actions when I practiced.
- With enough advance warning you can file a contempt action during the pendency of the divorce and ask that it be heard in advance of the final hearing.
- Many lawyers will agree to combine temporary contempt issues with the final hearing. That is often done in this district. You can do that by pleading, of course, or by stipulation or agreed order, or it can be listed as a contested issue in a consent.
The main thing to remember is that amounts that were ordered to be paid under a temporary order are vested when due, and the right to collect them does not terminate on entry of the final judgment, even though the final judgment does terminate the temporary order itself. And it is not necessary for the final judgment of divorce to recite or provide for a right of future enforcement of the temporary order.
Child Support Guidelines and the Shared Custody Arrangement
January 27, 2014 § 4 Comments
Shared parenting arrangements are more and more common in chancery court. The forms they take can vary considerably. In some cases there is a true joint custody provision whereby the children spend significant periods with each parent. In other cases, the time allocated between the parents is in the form of one parent having custody, and the other parent having extended visitation.
A question that arises from those cases is what impact the division of time has on a child support order. MCA 43-19-101(2) says that the statutory child support guidelines apply unless the court makes a finding ” … that application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under the criteria specified …” in MCA 43-119-103. One of those deviation criteria is set out in MCA 43-19-103(g), which reads:
The particular shared parenting arrangement, such as where the noncustodial parent spends a great deal of time with the children thereby reducing the financial expenditures incurred by the custodial parent, or the refusal of the noncustodial parent to become involved in the activities of the child, giving due consideration to the custodial parent’s homemaking services.
I interpret this to mean that, in order to invoke this exception, it would require both a showing that there is a custody arrangement involving “a great deal of time” spent with the child by the paying (“noncustodial”) parent, either: (a) resulting in reduced financial expenditures by the other (“custodial”) parent; or (b) refusal of the paying parent to be involved in the child’s activities, inferentially resulting in increased expenses for the other parent. In either case, the court would be required to take into account the homemaking services of the non-paying parent.
A case illustrating application of Section 103(g) is Marin v. Stewart, decided by the COA on September 24, 2013. In that case, Marin argued on appeal that the chancellor had erred in not reducing his child support obligation due to a shared-custody arrangement. Judge Irving addressed the issue for the court:
¶10. Marin contends that section 43-19-103(g) is a criterion that the chancellor failed to consider. He argues that his voluntary extended-visitation arrangement with Stewart satisfies section 43-19-103(g) and would justify a downward deviation from the child-support guidelines. Marin did not raise this issue before the chancellor, and he is procedurally barred from asserting it for the first time on appeal. See Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So. 2d 1185, 1191 (¶14) (Miss. 2008).
¶11. Procedural bar notwithstanding, while section 43-19-101(2) requires that the chancellor make specific findings under the criteria in section 43-19-103 in order to deviate from the guidelines, it does not require that all criteria be considered in order for the findings to be sufficient. See Hensarling v. Hensarling, 824 So. 2d 583, 588 (¶¶13-15) (Miss. 2002) (affirming the chancellor’s reasoning that the guidelines were inappropriate when the chancellor’s findings only addressed two of the criteria under section 43-19-103); Smith v. Smith, 25 So. 3d 369, 374 (¶¶14-15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (affirming the chancellor’s on-the-record findings when his findings only applied to two of the criteria listed under section 43-19-103).
¶12. Here, the chancellor stated on the record his reasons for deviating from the guidelines. Although his reasoning did not include an analysis of Marin’s visitation arrangement—which was not enough to warrant a deviation from the guidelines since there is no indication in the record that the visitation reduced Stewart’s financial expenditures—the chancellor’s findings on the record indicate that he deemed the guidelines inappropriate because fourteen percent of Marin’s adjusted gross income would have been less than what it costs to keep the child in daycare. The chancellor’s reasoning properly falls under section 43-19-103(i), as the child must go to daycare in order for Stewart to retain employment. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to justify the chancellor’s determination that the application of the guidelines were inappropriate. This issue is without merit.
A few points:
- Notice Judge Irving’s statement that “there is no indication in the record that the visitation reduced Stewart’s financial expenditures.” Again, if you want a downward reduction via subsection (g), you’d better muster up proof that your client’s actions reduced the other party’s expenditures.
- It is important to realize that Section 103 does not mandate a reduction in child support because one of the factors is present. It only authorizes the court to deviate from the guidelines if one of them applies. The statute specifically states that the presumption of applicability of the Section 101 guidelines “may” be overcome; not “shall” be overcome.
- Judge Irving also makes the obvious point that not all of the criteria spelled out in Section 103 need be considered by the court in order for findings to be sufficient.
- Section 103(g) is both a sword and a shield. Note that its language would justify either a downward adjustment in one set of facts, or an upward adjustment in another set of facts.
Don’t assume that child support will be 14, or 20, or 22, or 24, or 26%. If you represent the paying party, study Section 103 to see whether there is a basis for a downward justification. If you represent the non-paying party, you just might find something in Section 103 that will justify an upward adjustment. That’s what happened in Marin v. Stewart, and it held up on appeal.
The Not-so-Illusory Agreement
January 16, 2014 § Leave a comment
It has long been the law in Mississippi that parties effect extra-judicial modifications at their peril, and that chancery courts are neither designed or equipped to enforce such agreements.
Only last September we read here about Donald Brewer and Penny Holliday, who had agreed to modify their divorce judgment vis a vis custody and support. They had lawyers incorporate their agreement into an agreed judgment, and they proceeded to conform to the agreement in nearly every respect for several years. Only problem is, no one ever saw to it that the agreed judgment was entered. Both Donald and Penny believed that it had been entered. When the parties had a falling out and wound up back in court, the chancellor refused to enforce the agreement, notwithstanding the course of compliance, and found Donald in contempt. The COA affirmed, as you can read in the previous post.
Donald in due course persuaded the MSSC to take another look, and in Brewer v. Holliday, decided by the MSSC on January 9, 2013, the high court reversed. Justice Dickinson’s opinion states, in part:
¶14. This Court has recognized that, at times, equity may “suggest ex post facto approval of extra-judicial adjustments in the manner and form in which support payments have been made.” [citation omitted] For instance, in Alexander v. Alexander, this Court held that equity required crediting a father for payments of child support made directly to the child – once the child moved in with him – instead of to the mother. [citation omitted] And in Varner v. Varner, we explained that “the father may receive credit for having paid child support where, in fact, he paid the support directly to or for the benefit of the child, where to hold otherwise would unjustly enrich the mother.” [citation omitted] Noncustodial parents pay child support to custodial parents for the benefit of the child, not the parent, [citation omitted] and that support belongs to the child, not the custodial parent. [citation omitted]
[Note: read the opinion at the link for the case citations. Copying and pasting numerous footnotes is too cumbersome for this blog]
The court went on to remand the case for the chancellor to consider the fact that the child resided with Donald, à la Varner, finding that the arrangement should have been taken into account by the judge at the original hearing.
There is no airtight rule against enforcement of extra-judicial modifications. Each case must be considered on its own merits, and the equities must be weighed. Here, the high court considered that it would be best for Donald’s equities to be taken into account, rather than closing the door on enforcement of the agreement. No doubt the parties’ ignorance of the fact that the judgment had never been entered, coupled with their compliance with it for a time, had persuasive weight in this particular case.
A Due Process Wrinkle for Child Support
January 2, 2014 § Leave a comment
Helping a client collect past-due child support can be devilishly difficult, particularly when the obligated parent disappears, or tries to.
If you will look at MCA 93-11-65(5) and (7), you may find some help.
MCA 93-11-65(5) mirrors UCCR 8.06 in its requirement that both parties in cases involving minor children must keep each other and the court informed of the party’s residence address and telephone number. It goes further, however, for child support cases, and requires that both parties notify each other and the court and the state child support registry of the party’s ” … location and identity, including social security number, residdential and mailing addresses, telephone numbers, photograph, driver’s license number, and name, address and telephone number of the party’s employer.” The information is required upon entry of an order or within five days of a change of address. [Note: Although the statute specifically refers to change of address, it would seem that a court order could direct updating on change of any particular].
Applying the foregoing, you will do your child support client a great service by making sure that the above language is in every child support order you submit to the court, and that you make sure that the appropriate information on both parties is filed as required, including with the state registry, as directed in the statute.
Why go to that trouble?
Well, that’s where MCA 93-11-65(7) comes in. It provides that “In any subsequent child support enforcement action between the parties, upon sufficient showing that diligent effort has been made to ascertain the location of a party, due process requirements for notice and service of process shall be deemed to be met with respect to the party upon delivery of written notice to the most recent residential or employer address filed with the state case registry.”
So, after diligent search and inquiry to locate the slacker, you issue process to his or her last reported residence address or employer, and — Volia! — you have personal jurisdiction under the statute. Note the language “filed with the state case registry.” That’s a key component. You must have seen to it that the info was filed with the state registry.
The case registry is provided for in MCA 43-19-31(l)(ii) [that’s lowercase L], and is to be maintained by DHS.
To be honest, I have yet to see anyone avail themselves of this procedure. If you have had experience with it, I would welcome your comments. It seems to me to be quite advantageous to private parties trying to enforce child support obligations
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 