Child Support | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

Next Step for Adult Disabled Children?

December 9, 2013 § 3 Comments

NOTE … If you have any interest at all in this issue, you should read Paul Snow’s comment to this post.

I posted here about the MSSC case, Hays v. Alexander, which I thought may have laid to rest the issue of a court-created duty of support for adult disabled children.

Well, hold on while I slam on the brakes, and I hope I’m not giving anybody whiplash.

This appeared on the MSSC decisions web page last Thursday:

EN BANC
2012-CA-01085-SCT

John W. Ravenstein v. Elisha Ravenstein (Hawkins)

; Madison Chancery Court; LC Case #: 96-350-B; Ruling Date: 04/18/2012; Ruling Judge: Cynthia Brewer; Disposition: On the Court’s own motion, the parties are directed to file the original and nine copies of supplemental briefs, and to serve a copy of the briefs on the Office of the Attorney General, 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, due on the following schedule: within 30 days of the entry of this order John shall file his supplemental brief which shall not exceed 25 pages; within 30 days of the service of John’s supplemental brief, Elisha shall file her supplemental brief which shall not exceed 25 pages; and within 14 days of the service of Elisha’s supplemental brief, John may file a supplemental reply brief which shall not exceed 10 pages. The Clerk of this Court shall serve a copy of this order on the attorneys of record, as well as on the Office of the Attorney General. If the Attorney General chooses to file a brief, it shall be due within 30 days of the service of Elisha’s supplemental brief and shall not exceed 25 pages. Lamar, J., Disagrees. Order entered.

It appears this particular case is a matter of statutory interpretation, not a request for the court to create a remedy. It’s an interesting possible development.

Stay tuned.

Non-DNA Parenthood

December 5, 2013 § 2 Comments

Disestablishing parentage has been a statutory procedure since 2011, when the legislature adopted MCA 93-9-10. I posted here an annotated version of the provision that set out my opinion of how to plead and prove it.

The MSSC at last was presented with an opportunity to address its application in the case of Jones v. Mallett, et al., handed down November 14, 2013.

Terence Jones was involved in a romantic relationship with Annette Mallett in 2000. Mallett gave birth to a child on August 22 of that year. Mallett says that she told Jones he was not the father when she learned of the pregnancy. Jones claims that he did not learn that he was not the father until after signing the paternity agreement and birth certificate application, or as much as four months later.

Jones was listed as the father on the birth certificate, and he signed it. In October, 2000, he and DHS entered into a “Stipulated Agreement of Support and Admission of Paternity,” which was approved by order of the chancery court.

In December, 2010, Jones had a DNA test performed, which excluded him as the father. He filed an action in chancery court to disestablish paternity, rather than a MRCP 60(b)(5) or (6) motion. The chancellor eventually dismissed Terence’s pleading, based on MCA 93-9-10. Terence appealed.

The supreme court brushed aside Terence’s argument that the agreement was the result of a “material mistake of fact” under MCA 93-9-10(3)(b), finding that “The facts as presented do not establish sufficient circumstances for the application of subsection (b).” [ ¶7 ]

Terence also argued that subsections (c) and (d) must be read together, mandating a finding that he meets the criteria for disestablishment, but the court rejected that position, pointing out that (c) relates to stipulations of paternity, and (d) relates to stipulations of support, which are two different things.

That last point is critical to the case because (c) says that the court may not set aside an agreement of paternity that has been approved by the court (as this one had been). Subsection (d), on the other hand allows disestablishment of parentage if he signed an agreement of support without knowledge that he is not the father of the child. That without knowledge language is significantly absent from (c). Since Terence had signed both, he had no wiggle room.

To me, the MSSC is sending the signal via this opinion that the statute will be strictly applied.

No doubt the considerable passage of time from the signing of the paternity agreement to DNA testing and the filing of suit and eventual court appearance figured into the unhappy result for Terence.

Canary in a Gold Mine*

November 5, 2013 § 2 Comments

Can a father be ordered to buy a car as part of educational (college) expenses for his child? And what exactly is the relationship between college education support and regular child support?

Those were the two essential questions before the court in the case of Brooks v. Fields, decided by the COA October 15, 2013.

Ronald Brooks was adjudged to be the natural father of a daughter, Canary DashSherrel Brooks, born to Janice Fields. The parties agreed to an amount of child support and to split Canary’s medical expenses between them.

Janice later filed a petition to modify child support for the child, who apparently was approaching college age. At the time, Ronald was an unemployed veteran living with his mother. He reported income of $2,700 a month but conceded that his income would increase once his Social Security Disability claim was approved, and he also had recently received $25,000 in lump-sum VA benefits. Canary was receiving $936 a month in VA benefits through her father, and an additional $678 in SS benefits. Ronald claimed net monthly income of $900 a month after payment of all of his living expenses.

The chancellor ordered Ronald to pay $15,000 in a lump sum within 90 days to purchase a vehicle for Canary’s transportation to and from college. He also ordered Ronald to pay the cost of insuring the car. Ronald and Janice were each ordered to pay one-half of the cost of college after grants, etc.

Ronald appealed. He argued that it was error for the chancellor to order him to pay for a vehicle that was beyond his financial means, and that the court’s ruling did not take into account the statutory child support guidelines or the VA and SS benefits that Canary was already receiving.

In its decision, authored by Judge Griffis, the COA spelled out the law of support for college-age children:

¶12. Mississippi law provides that parents can be required to pay reasonable expenses associated with a child’s college education, where the child shows an aptitude for college. Pass v. Pass, 238 Miss. 449, 455, 118 So. 2d 769, 771 (1960). This Court has held that automobile expenses may be awarded as part of college expenses. Striebeck v. Striebeck, 911 So. 2d 628, 637-38 (¶¶36, 41) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Specifically, the supreme court has upheld a chancellor’s order for a parent to purchase a vehicle as part of a minor child’s educational expenses, and held that “[t]hough an automobile is not an expense which every parent can provide his/her child, it is not an abuse of a chancellor’s discretion to require a parent to purchase a vehicle where warranted by the circumstances in a particular case.” Chesney v. Chesney, 910 So. 2d 1057, 1065 (¶25) (Miss. 2005).

¶13. The supreme court has also held that it is the responsibility of parents, not the child, to provide funds for education, even if the child has an independent source of funds. Saliba v. Saliba, 753 So. 2d 1095, 1099 (¶13) (Miss. 2000). Payments for college-education expenses, however, do not qualify toward statutory child support, nor will they render child support otherwise within the statutory guidelines to exceed the guideline amount, because “they do not diminish the child’s need for food, clothing[,] and shelter.” Cossey v. Cossey, 22 So. 3d 353, 358 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citations omitted).

That bold language is important. I think most chancellors take the position that the college support and child support need to be considered all together, based on the child’s needs and the parents’ resources.

So, what should the trial court consider in determining what is reasonable for a parent to pay? Judge Griffis’s opinion continues:

¶14. Mississippi law, however, limits the parental requirement for payment of educational expenses. The supreme court has determined that a child, if the father is financially able, is entitled to attend college in accord with her family standards. Wray v. Langston, 380 So. 2d 1262, 1264 (Miss.1980) (emphasis added). Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-11-65(2) (Supp. 2012) provides “that where the proof shows that both parents have separate incomes or estates, the court may require that each parent contribute to the support and maintenance of the children in proportion to the relative financial ability of each.” The supreme court has interpreted this statute to authorize the chancellor to hold parents liable for educational expenses commensurate with the parents’ station in life; and the parents are not obligated to provide such support if it is beyond their station in life. Saliba, 753 So. 2d at 1103 (¶27) (citation omitted).

¶15. Here, the chancellor clearly had the discretion to require both Brooks and Fields to contribute to Canary’s college-education expenses, which included the vehicle purchase, without consideration of the monthly benefits Canary received and in addition to the statutory support. However, we find that the chancellor abused his discretion when he required Brooks to pay a $15,000 lump sum toward the purchase of a vehicle for Canary. The evidence does not support this decision.

¶16. Brooks’s financial statement indicated that he had $900 in disposable monthly income. Even though his disposable income was soon to increase based on additional disability benefits he was to receive, he was still a disabled veteran on a fixed income. Indeed, a lumpsum payment of $15,000 for the purchase of a vehicle was hardly commensurate with his station in life. There was simply no evidence that Brooks was financially able to pay the cost of the vehicle and the costs of Canary’s other college expenses. Brooks offered to help purchase a vehicle for Canary at a more reasonable price he could afford. The lump-sum payment of $15,000 was well beyond Brooks’s financial means.

¶17. The chancellor relied on the $25,000 lump-sum back payment Brooks received from his Veterans Administration benefits when he ordered Brooks to make the lump-sum payment. There was evidence that Brooks had spent $9,900 of that money for the cash purchase of two vehicles, which would presumably leave him $15,100 in disposable income. However, there was no evidence that Brooks had any of this disposable income or cash on hand at the time the chancellor ordered the payment. Thus, we find that the chancellor’s decision to order Brooks to pay the $15,000 lump sum for the vehicle purchase was not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Thus, the chancellor was not within his discretion to award a lump-sump payment of $15,000 to Fields for the purchase of a vehicle for Canary. Therefore, as to this award, we reverse and render the chancellor’s judgment.

The case is a template for how to analyze college support vis a vis child support, and the extent of the parents’ responsibility.

With the reversal, then, the gold mine awarded by the trial court is reduced to a coal mine by the COA.

* Apologies for the title to musicians The Police and Sting.

Majority Rules

October 30, 2013 § 2 Comments

A young lawyer told me a couple of weeks ago that a woman called her and asked what was the age when a child was no longer entitled to child support. “Twenty-one” was the lawyer’s reply. To which the caller responded, “No, you’re wrong; it’s 23.”

No matter how firmly convinced she was, the caller was firmly wrong, so far as Mississippi law is concerned. Emancipation for all purposes occurs at age 21, unless the parents contracted to support the child to a later age.

In Archie v. Archie, decided by the COA on October 15, 2013, Amos Archie was ordered by the court to pay child support, health insurance, and college expenses for two children, both of whom were over the age of 21. In reversing, the COA, by Judge Barnes, said this:

¶14. A parent has no statutory or common-law duty to support a child who has reached the age of majority. See Hays v. Alexander, 114 So. 3d 704, 707 (¶12) (Miss. 2013). “Legally, a parent is relieved of the duty to support his child once the child is emancipated whether by attaining the age of majority or otherwise.” Meek v. Warren, 726 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Nichols v. Tedder, 547 So. 2d 766, 770 (Miss. 1989)).

¶15. Under Mississippi Code Annotated sections 93-5-23 and 93-11-65 (Supp. 2012), a chancellor may make a determination that a child has become emancipated when the child has reached twenty-one years of age. If such a determination is made, then “[t]he duty of support of a child terminates upon the emancipation of the child.” Miss. Code Ann. § 93-5-23. Furthermore, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that:

In the absence of a determination of emancipation in a child-support judgment, a child is freed for all the period of his minority from the care, custody, control, and service of his parents (i.e., he is emancipated) upon attaining the age of twenty-one, at which time Mississippi statute provides that his minority terminates. Accordingly, the duty imposed by [Mississippi Code Annotated s]ection 93-5-23 for a parent to support [a] child does not extend beyond the child’s minority, which terminates when the child reaches twenty-one years of age, as provided by our Legislature.

Hays, 114 So. 3d at 709 (¶14) (Miss. 2013) (internal citations and emphasis omitted).

As for the order to maintain health insurance:

¶17. We also find that the order for Amos “to maintain in full force and effect health and life insurance for the children” is erroneous. The supreme court has noted that “[i]nsurance coverage for the benefit of children in divorce cases is an issue of child support.” Arthur v. Arthur, 691 So. 2d 997, 1001 (Miss. 1997) (citing Brennan v. Brennan, 638 So. 2d 1320, 1325 (Miss. 1994)). Absent compelling reasons, such as the mental or physical incapacitation of a child, the obligation of a parent ordered to maintain insurance for the benefit of a minor child ceases when the child reaches majority. Id.

And, finally, with regard to the college education support order:

¶18. Lastly, the chancellor ordered Amos “to pay one-half (50%) of all college expenses for both children, Brittney and [Corey].” The supreme court has stated:

[I]f the [college education] benefit is awarded as child support, that right terminates when the child becomes emancipated[,] . . . but if it is awarded as an adjustment of the rights between the parties to the divorce as to who shall share or pay what portion of the expense of a college education, then the right vests and does not terminate although the child does not enjoy that benefit until he may have passed the age of 21.

Stokes v. Maris, 596 So. 2d 879, 881 (Miss. 1992); see also Crow v. Crow, 622 So. 2d 1226, 1230 (Miss. 1993) (finding that a parent was contractually bound by an agreement to provide “post-emancipation support in the form of college and other expenses”). However, while contractual agreements to provide post-emancipation support during a child’s college attendance are enforceable, there is no such agreement in the present case. Thus, we find that the chancellor erred in ordering Amos to pay for college expenses for both children. [Footnotes omitted]

What is important to take away from this case is that, since Nichols v. Tedder, the MSSC has consistently hewed to the line that emancipation occurs at age 21, unless adjudicated earlier, and that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the benefits of minority can not be extended by a trial court beyond that age. That’s important to bear in mind, no matter how firmly convinced and insistent your client seems to be.

Applying the Post-9/11 GI Bill

October 28, 2013 § Leave a comment

As war drags on in the Far East, there is a growing number of veterans who have earned entitlement to educational benefits under the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, known as the “Post-9/11 GI Bill,” codified at 38 USC § 3301, et seq.

The law grants active-duty veterans payment of college tuition, fees, books, and a monthly housing allowance. Those benefits may be transferred to a family member. The law includes the language, however, that:

” … Entitlements transferred … may not be treated as marital property, or the asset of a marital estate, subject to division in a divorce or other civil proceeding.” 38 USC § 3319(f)(3).

George Neville and his former wife, Tina Blitz, were confronted with how to divide Post-9/11 benefits in connection with the college education of their daughter, Joyce. George was eligible for Post-9/11benefits, and he decided to transfer them to Joyce.

George wanted Joyce to attend SMU so as to maximize her Post-9/11 benefits. Tina wanted Joyce to attend a state-supported school in Mississippi so as to qualify for in-state tuition. Joyce chose SMU, and she and George agreed that she would bank the $1,200 monthly housing stipend to use after her entitlement to Post-9/11 benefits expired, presumably when she reached age 21. For her share, Joyce began paying the equivalent of the expenses at a state-supported school.

George filed a petition to modify the parties’ divorce judgment. His position at trial was that he wanted Tina to pay all expenses not covered by the GI Bill, which he estimated to be around $19,000 a semester.

The chancellor modified the judgment to provide that George was entitled to full credit for tuition, fees, and books, but that the $1,200 housing benefit would be taken off the top, and not credited to him. George appealed, complaining that the chancellor’s ruling was a division of benefits contrary to the statute.

In a case of first impression, the MSSC in Neville v. Blitz, rendered September 26, 2013, reversed the trial court’s ruling. The opinion by Justice Coleman, explained:

¶9. We previously have considered distribution of military disability benefits and military retirement pay in domestic relations cases. See Mallard v. Burkart, 95 So. 3d 1264, 1272 (¶ 21) (Miss. 2012); Rennie v. Rennie, 718 So. 2d 1091, 1095 (¶ 13) (Miss. 1998); Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So. 2d 909, 913 (Miss. 1994); Newman v. Newman, 558 So. 2d 821, 823 (Miss. 1990). But those cases dealt with the application of other federal laws pertaining to military benefits, such as the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act, not the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The instant issue is one of first impression for the Court, and we have not found any cases from any jurisdiction directly addressing the specific issue at hand.

¶10. In the instant case, the chancellor held that Joyce’s college expenses should be reduced by her scholarships and the $1,200 monthly housing stipend; then Tina and George were to split the remaining amount equally, with George taking full credit for all Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits except the housing stipend. George asserts that the chancellor’s treatment of the monthly housing stipend violated Section 3319, which provides that benefits transferred to a spouse or child “may not be treated as marital property, or the asset of a marital estate, subject to division in a divorce or other civil proceeding.” 38 U.S.C. § 3319(f)(3) (2011). Tina maintains that the prohibition on treating transferred benefits as marital property is inapplicable, because the chancellor did not classify the stipend as marital property; thus, she maintains that the chancellor’s decision did not constitute a division of the benefits. Tina also argues that, because George transferred the benefits to Joyce, the benefits belong to Joyce much like her scholarships; therefore, Tina asserts that taking the benefits off the top before dividing the remainder between the parents was appropriate.

¶11. George earned the benefits at issue here long after the parties divorced, and neither party claims that the benefits are marital property. We agree that George’s Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits were not marital property because they were not earned during the marriage; thus, they were not subject to division. See Wheat v. Wheat, 37 So. 3d 632, 637 (¶¶ 14-15) (Miss. 2010); Hemsley, 639 So. 2d at 915 (Miss. 1994). While the chancellor did not label the benefits as marital property, his instruction to take the benefits off the top of Joyce’s expenses gave Tina a credit that she otherwise would not have had and resulted in George not getting full credit for all of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. We find that the chancellor’s decision effectively acted as a “division” of the benefits. Although the proceeding was not an original divorce proceeding, it was a “civil proceeding” pertaining to modification of a divorce decree. Therefore, we conclude that the chancellor’s allocation of the housing stipend amounted to a division of the benefits in a civil proceeding, which is prohibited by Section 3319(f)(3).

¶12. Tina’s argument that the GI Bill benefits belonged to Joyce lacks merit. When benefits are transferred, the service member has the option to revoke the transfer at anytime. 38 U.S.C. § 3319(f)(2) (2011). Thus, the service member remains in control of the transferred benefits, and they still belong to him. The chancellor held that George was entitled to credit for the rest of the benefits – the payments for tuition, fees, and books – but the $1,200 monthly stipend was taken off the top of the expenses and not credited to George. All of the benefits should be treated equally. Because the GI Bill benefits still belong to George, he should be credited with all of them, and none of the benefits should be divided between George and Tina.

The case was remanded to the chancery court.

The chancellor in this case did exactly what I think most chancellors would have done; that is, to credit George with the actual benefit of his entitlement that was being applied for the child during her minority, and splitting the remaining unpaid expenses between the two parents.

The wild card in this case, however, was the GI Bill, which includes express language against dividing the benefits. In this scenario, the MSSC found that the chancellor had, indeed, divided the benefits by force of his ruling, against the language of the statute.

This would seem to be a more frequently encountered fact situation as greater numbers of active-duty veterans pass through our courts in domestic relations actions. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a law with which you need to become familiar.

The Case of the Illusory Agreement

September 11, 2013 § 3 Comments

How enforceable is an extra-judicial agreement to reduce child support? And just what constitutes an agreement?

Those questions were at the heart of the dispute between Donald Brewer and his ex-wife, Penny Holliday. Donald had agreed in a PSA for Penny to have custody of the children, and to pay her $1,185 per month in child support. That agreement was incorporated into a judgment of divorce entered June 7, 2005.

In August, 2005, Donald filed a contempt and modification action asking to change custody. Penny counterclaimed that Donald was unfit for custody. There were several continuances. In July, 2006, the parties engaged in voluntary mediation, at the conclusion of which they entered into an agreed order and memorandum of understanding that effected a change of custody of one of the children and reduced Donald’s child support to $600 a month.

The agreed order was never submitted to the chancellor, but Donald nonetheless reduced his child support to the agreed amount, and Penny responded with a contempt action immediately after the first reduced payment. Penny stated that she “withdrew from the agreed order” because Donald “rejected certain financial obligations” and harassed her.

Donald filed for bankruptcy, and Penny had to file a claim with the bankruptcy court to continue to pursue her action to recover the child-support arrearage.

In February, 2008, after he enlisted in the military, Donald filed yet another modification action, asking to reduce his child support from $1,185 to $737. His pleading made no mention of the mediation agreement.

In July, 2009, Donald filed a pleading seeking to have the agreed mediation order entered nunc pro tunc. He alleged that the order had not been entered due to inadvertence and oversight, and that it had been misplaced by one of the several attorneys who had represented him in this now-epic litigation. The chancellor overruled the motion on November 5, 2009.

At last, on June 14, 2011, nearly six years after the initial filing, the case went to trial. The chancellor found Donald in contempt and entered a judgment against him for $34,515 in child-support arrearage. Donald appealed, claiming that the chancellor erred in not entering the agreed mediation judgment.

The COA, in Brewer v. Holliday, affirmed on March 12, 2013.

In response to Donald’s argument that Penny should be held bound by her agreement, the court pointed out that Donald himself had filed pleadings that asked for a reduction from $1,185 to $737, indicating that the parties had not conformed to the agreement. Penny also filed claims in the bankruptcy, which the COA noted should have tipped Donald off that Penny did not consider the agreement to have taken effect.

As for Donald’s argument that he should not be found in contempt because he paid the amount he reasonably believed was due under the never-entered agreed mediation order, the court looked to the bankruptcy proceedings as an indication that he was aware of Penny’s claims and non-acquiescence in any agreement. Judge Griffis, for the court:

¶25. A party, such as Brewer, “who extra-judicially modifies or eliminates child support payments acts ‘at his peril.’” Rogers v. Rogers, 662 So. 2d 1111, 1115 (Miss. 1995) (quoting Varner v. Varner, 588 So. 2d 428, 434 (Miss. 1991)). “[C]ourt-ordered child support payments vest in the child as they accrue and may not thereafter be modified or forgiven, only paid.” Varner, 588 So. 2d at 434. “[A] court cannot relieve the civil liability for support payments that have already accrued.” Thrift v. Thrift, 760 So. 2d 732, 737 (¶16) (Miss. 2000) (citation omitted).

¶26. Even after Holliday filed claims in Brewer’s bankruptcy action for child-support arrearages, Brewer continued to pay only $600, contrary to the only order that obligated him to pay child support. The fact of the matter is that Brewer paid only $600 when there was sufficient evidence to indicate that he was aware that his obligation had not been reduced. We find that there was substantial evidence before the chancellor to find Brewer in willful contempt.

So, to wrap this up:

If you get an agreed judgment, get it signed by the judge and entered right away. It happens every day that parties agree to one thing at the court house and then have “buyer’s remorse” later, after talking to aunt Susie and every other legal scholar in the family, and want to back out.
Good luck getting a judge to enforce an out-of-court agreement. The only exceptions off the top of my head are: (1) where the parties reached an agreement and it was undisputedly not entered by oversight, and the parties acted in accordance with the agreement, as in Wright v. Wright, 737 So.2d 408 (Miss. App. 1998); and (2) where the court treats unpaid child support as having been “paid” in the situation where one or more of the children has lived with the paying parent by agreement, as in Varner, cited above. In this case, I suppose the only reason that the trial court did not consider Donald’s situation to be within the holding in Varner is that he did not ask for that relief or raise that issue.
In my opinion it helped Penny’s case to file a contempt action immediately when Donald first reduced his child support payments. That move was clear evidence to me that she did not consider that the parties had reached an agreement sufficient to submit it to the court for approval.

Income Withholding Orders

August 14, 2013 § 6 Comments

Child support is generally paid directly to the recipient parent, or to DHS in cases where that agency has filed an action.

But did you know that federal law requires that child support must be collected by directing employers to withhold income, and that a certain prescribed form, referred to as an Income Withholding Order (IWO), must be entered in every child support case, except in certain circumstances that are mentioned below?

The federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 required the entry of IWO’s in all child support cases entered on or after January 1, 1994.

Every IWO must direct payments to the State Disbursement Unit (SDU). Payments may not be directed to an individual. An IWO that directs payments to an individual is required to be rejected. Mississippi does, by the way, have its own SDU.

Also, effective May 31, 2012, every IWO must be on the form prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget. You can access a fillable version of the form by clicking this link. Instructions for completing the form, with a link to a .pdf version, are at this link. Employers are directed in their instruction material to return any IWO that is not in the prescribed form.

The law mandates that the income of the paying parent shall be subject to income withholding on the effective date of the order, without regard to whether the parent is in arrears in payments. It is for collection of all child support, and not limited to collection of arrearages.

The only exception to child support withholding is set out in § 486(a)(8)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act, which allows direct payment in two cases:

Where one of the parents demonstrates, and the court finds, that there is good cause not to require immediate income withholding; or
The parents have a written agreement for an alternative arrangement.

The original IWO forms that went into use in the 1990’s (then referred to as “Wage Withholding Orders” or WWHO) were either effective immediately or could be made effective at a later date. That feature is eliminated, since all orders are now effective immediately on entry.

Also, if you are still using WWHO forms from the 1990’s, your forms are hopelessly antiquated. You must switch over to the IWO form referred to above.

In my experience, there are districts around the state where IWO’s are unknown. Why DHS has not made it a priority to see that the law is widely implemented is a mystery. Or maybe they have, in places where I have not been able to observe.

We have used WWHO’s in this district since the early 1990’s. Mandatory withholding, however, is rare in this district; my guess is that only two to three percent of cases employ it. I have not seen an IWO on the latest form since they went into effect in May of last year; all the withholding forms I see are old WWHO forms.

Child Dependency and Taxes

July 29, 2013 § Leave a comment

Randy Wallace has some useful info on his blog in a post entitled Who Gets to Claim the Child on Taxes?

It’s a subject you need to be on top of, because quite often you are called upon to include such a provision in your clients’ property settlement agreements. You want to make sure that the language you choose will do exactly what your client expects it to do with the IRS.

Remember always to include language that requires both parties to execute and deliver the proper forms in a timely fashion that are needed to carry out the terms of the agreement.

Temporarily Financially Embarrassed

July 8, 2013 § Leave a comment

When I was in private practice, our firm was visited from time to time by a couple from a neighboring county who lived in the fading glimmer of bygone prosperity. They would arrive in a 20-year-old Cadillac with threadbare upholstery. The husband wore well-cut, if aged, shiny-legged suits, and the wife was attired in tailored dresses from the 50’s. They lived in an elegant, old home that had fallen into a shabby state. I understood that the old gentleman was the son of a wealthy family, but that vein of wealth had undoubtedly run lean.

The pair would visit for a while with my senior partner until the conversation lapsed into an uneasy silence, at which point the lady would profess that they were “temporarily financially embarrassed,” and could he spare them a few dollars until the first of the month. To my knowledge they never left disappointed.

In like manner, Paul Frazier became temporarily financially embarrassed when he lost his job and had to take a job paying considerably less. He petitioned the chancery court for a downward modification. The chancellor granted a reduction for a period of one year, and assessed him with a judgment for $10,000 in child support arrearage. His ex-wife, Sharon, appealed.

On appeal, Sharon argued that Paul should not have been able to modify his obligation because it was contractual, an argument that the court brushed aside. She also questioned whether the chancellor had authority to grant a temporary or time-limited reduction in child support.

Here’s what Judge Fair’s opinion in Frazier v. Frazier, handed down June 25, 2013, stated on the point for a unanimous court:

¶17. The Supreme Court of Mississippi, in Bailey v. Bailey, 724 So. 2d 335, 339 (¶12) (Miss. 1998), held that temporary reduction in child support, as occurred in this case, is not only within the power of a chancellor – it is required under appropriate circumstances. In Bailey it was held:

Where the reason for modification is temporary in nature, the trial court should order a temporary reduction in child support. See Nichols v. Tedder, 547 So. 2d 766, 781-82 (Miss. 1989). The chancellor’s order permanently reducing Sandra’s child support obligation is reversed, and this case is remanded for further findings on a reasonable temporary reduction in child support.

Id. (emphasis added).

¶18. In today’s case the chancellor determined that, based on financial disclosures of income and assets referred to but not included in the record on appeal, a “reasonable temporary reduction in child support” was appropriate, even if she did not use those exact words. She stated, in ruling from the bench, that Paul could pay the amount he had voluntarily agreed was needed to support his two children by rearranging his priorities, financial affairs, and employment. The chancellor temporarily reduced his child support for a year in order to assist him in doing so. That was not error.

Temporary modification is a nifty item to add to your tool chest, offensively or defensively. If you represent the payor, and you know your chancellor is going to frown on a downward modification, consider asking in the alternative for a temporary reduction. Likewise, if you are on the other side, and the equities clearly favor reduction, consider asking the court to make it temporary. At least until the embarrassment subsides.

Frazier is the subject of a previous post dealing with retroactive modification.

Relief Beyond the Pleadings

July 3, 2013 § 1 Comment

How far can a chancellor go to effect complete relief between the parties when there is no pleading specifically praying for the relief granted?

That was one of the questions before the COA in the case of Stasny v. Wages, decided June 25, 2013.

Lori Stasny had filed a petition to modify child support and asking the court to order her ex, John Michael Wages, to pay college support for the parties’ daughter, Sarah. The petition was one of several filed between the parties post-divorce, in which each sought to have the other held in contempt, and included a pleading in which Stasny sought to terminate Wages’ parental rights, a pleading in which Sarah joined as a party.

In the course of the hearing, Sarah testified that she had “other priorities” that she she considered more important than her relationship with her father, and that she had refused to speak with him at her high school graduation. She added that she had not visited her father in more than two years.

The chancellor ruled that Sarah’s estrangement from her father was extreme enough to warrant cessation of his support obligation, and he took the issue under advisement, allowing Stasny time to file a brief. Wages filed a motion to conform his pleadings to the proof to add the issue of termination of support. The chancellor granted the motion. Ultimately the chancellor terminated Wages’ duty to support the child, and Stasny appealed.

The COA affirmed the chancellor’s decision that Sarah was estranged from her father to the extent that he should be relieved of the support obligation. As to the termination of child support being outside the scope of the pleadings, Judge Fair’s majority affirming opinion set out the rationale:

¶16. Stasny next argues the chancellor erroneously granted Wages relief he did not request in his response to her petition. But procedurally, the fact that Wages did not specifically raise the issue of termination of his support obligation in his response is immaterial. See Evans v. Evans, 994 So. 2d 765, 772 (¶23) (Miss. 2008) (holding chancellor’s order that directed the parents be responsible for a child’s financial obligation “without either party raising the issue in their respective pleadings is not a procedural concern”). By petitioning to cite Wages for contempt and to modify the settlement agreement to include child support, Stasny submitted the issue of Wages’s financial support of Sarah to the chancellor—and this submission “include[d] all matters touching on that subject.” Brennan v. Brennan, 638 So.2d 1320, 1325 (Miss. 1994). Further, at the conclusion of the hearing, both Stasny and Wages moved for the pleadings to be amended to conform to the evidence presented at the hearing, which included evidence that Sarah’s actions amounted to forfeiture of her father’s financial support. So the issue of terminating support was properly before the chancellor.

¶17. Stasny also asserts the chancellor lacked authority to terminate Wages’s financial obligations towards Sarah because those obligations—in particular, the obligation to contribute to Sarah’s college trust fund—were based on a contract between Stasny and Wages. While Mississippi law does favor honoring the contractual agreements entered as part of divorce settlements and takes a “dim view” of attempts to modify them, Weathersby v. Weathersby, 693 So. 2d 1348, 1351 (Miss. 1997), these agreements are “quasi-contracts.” Varner v. Varner, 666 So. 2d 493, 496 (Miss. 1995) (citing Grier v. Grier, 616 So. 2d 337, 340 (Miss. 1993)). In contrast to a contract, “the chancellor always has the discretion to modify the [divorce] decree’s terms, and all such decrees are subject to the court’s approval.” Arrington v. Arrington, 80 So. 3d 160, 164 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Varner, 666 So. 2d at 496-97).

¶18. Stasny, at least implicitly, recognized the quasi-contractual nature of the settlement agreement. Stasny and Wages had already sought the chancellor’s approval to modify the settlement agreement once in 2008. And in her 2010 petition, it was Stasny who asked the court to modify the settlement agreement. Though Stasny had argued a material change in circumstances warranted modifying the agreement to increase Wages’s child support, the chancellor instead found a material change in circumstances—namely, the attempt to terminate Wages’s parental rights—warranted a termination of support. See Varner, 666 So. 2d at 497 (holding that, in order to modify an agreement incorporated into a divorce decree, there must be a material change in circumstances). Because we affirm the chancellor’s decision that Wages in under no obligation to pay child support or other expenses, we need not address Stasny’s final argument—that the chancellor erred by not requiring Wages produce to her his Rule 8.05 disclosure form, which he had presented to the chancellor in camera. See UCCR 8.05.

¶19. In Markofski v. Holzhauer, 799 So. 2d 162, 166-67 (¶¶21-24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), an ex-wife asked the court to enforce a voluntary agreement by her ex-husband to pay for his stepchild’s college expenses, an agreement that was part of their divorce settlement. The chancellor found the stepfather had no financial obligation to pay, in part because of the stepdaughter’s behavior towards her father. Id. at 167 (¶24). The chancellor “found that under the present circumstances, it would be unreasonable to require a man to pay for the college education of a former stepchild who accused him of molesting her, charges of which he was eventually acquitted.” Id. And relying on Hambrick, this court found no abuse of discretion. Markofski, 799 So. 2d at 167 (¶¶24-25) (citing Hambrick, 382 So. 2d at 477). While the facts here are not as egregious as the accusation in Markofski, the chancellor found that under the circumstances in this case—Sarah’s participation in the proceedings to terminate her father’s parental rights, coupled with her refusal to visit him—it would be unreasonable to enforce the provision in the divorce decree that her father pay into her college trust account.

¶20. Because there is evidence supporting the chancellor’s decision to terminate Wages’s financial obligations, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

A lot to chew on here, quasi contracts and all.

But the point is that when all of the parties are assembled and within the jurisdiction of the court, and the judge makes a fundamental ruling that affects the relationship among the parties, the chancellor should have the authority to reach out and effect complete relief. Our chancery courts are still courts of equity, according to the Mississippi Constitution. The MRCP did not erase the great maxims of equity from our jurisprudence. Here are two that would appear to be particularly applicable here:

Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy; and
Equity delights to do complete justice and not by halves.

Where Am I?