Modification | The Better Chancery Practice Blog

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.

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.

Still No Retroactive Downward Modification of Child Support

July 1, 2013 § 1 Comment

Every now and then I hear testimony that the party wants me to extend downward modification of child support retroactively, either to the date of filing, or to the date of the event that warranted a reduction in child support.

The answer, as you probably know, is that Mississippi law has long barred retroactive downward modification in child support cases.

In the COA case of Frazier v. Frazier, handed down June 25, 2013, appellant Paul Frazier asked the appellate court to change the rule and allow retroactive reduction, although he apparently had not pled for it at the trial-court level, and he acknowledged his uphill climb on appeal. Judge Fair stated the unanimous court’s opinion:

¶19. Though he did not affirmatively seek retroactive modification of the child support that he did not pay in full, Paul asks this Court to deviate from both long-established case law and legislative mandate and grant him retroactive relief. He begins his brief on appeal by admitting:

This is a case about the retroactive modification of child support. A husband sought a change in support because he had lost his job and was making considerably less than at the time of divorce. The trial court modified the child support. However, it took well over a year to obtain the relief, and in the meantime the husband incurred heavy child support obligations he could not meet.

Despite ordering a modification, the trial court did not order a reduction in his past due child support, even though the husband . . . had timely filed and pursued the modification. In the interests of equity and public policy, the Court must fashion a remedy for good faith litigants who are forced into extreme situations like this one.

¶20. Recently, in A.M.L. v. J.W.L., 98 So. 3d 1001, 1016-17 (¶¶40-42) (Miss. 2012), the Supreme Court of Mississippi addressed that specific issue and manifested its intent to continue adherence to its prior line of cases as well as defer to the statutory provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated section 43-19-34(4) (Rev. 2009), which allows retroactive increases in child support but expressly prohibits retroactive decreases.

¶21. Paul asks us to essentially repeal that statute and overrule a long line of supreme court authority, or at the very least to carve out an exception for decisions unduly delayed through no fault of the obligor. He admits, however, that:

Over twenty years ago, the Supreme Court determined that it would not allow a retroactive modification in child support on public policy grounds. Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So. 2d 839, 847 (Miss. 1990). The essential point was that a judicial decree ordered the child support, and a parent should not simply ignore it without leave of court. Id. “The rationale behind this view is not difficult to divine,” the Court held, since it wished to prohibit “self help” when a parent might seek to “modify his or her obligation with impunity.” Id.

After Cumberland, the Legislature saw fit to constrain retroactive modification further. It decreed that “[a]ny order for the support of minor children, whether entered through the judicial system or through an expedited process, shall not be subject to a downward retroactive modification.” Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-34(4) (the same law allowed an upward retroactive modification).

Paul relies upon and quotes from the four-member special concurrence penned by Justice Pierce in A.M.L., which posits allowing retroactive downward modification at least sparingly and in cases of crowded dockets and dilatory tactics causing unreasonable delay. A.M.L., 98 So. 3d at 1024-25 (¶70). In this case a crowded docket is obvious, but there is no clear evidence of dilatory tactics on Sharon’s part. On the other hand, there is some indication Paul caused a significant delay by insisting on a subpoena before providing his military records. Moreover, dilatory tactics have been held as justifying other relief, including monetary relief, even in child support cases. That remedy was suggested in Cumberland and considered and declined by the chancellor in this case.

¶22. Downward retroactive modification of child support remains prohibited by both statute and stare decisis provided by our highest court, which we must follow.

The “monetary relief” mentioned by Judge Fair refers to footnote 6, at page 847, in Cumberland, which says: “Where the non-movant engages in dilatory tactics and causes unreasonable delay, the trial court should not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers and order sanctions as may be appropriate.” In a previous footnote, as well as in the body of its opinion, the court specifically ruled out retroactive reduction.

I might add that retroactive downward modification has another inherent impediment in that each installment of child support becomes vested and a judgment in favor of the payee as and when due, and may not be reduced or modified by the trial court. See, e.g., Brand v. Brand, 482 So.2d 236, 237 (Miss. 1996).

If Paul is to change the law, he will have to look to the MSSC to get that done, which will now require him to file for rehearing before the COA, and a subsequent petition for cert to the MSSC. He may be staking his chips on that four-member minority in A.M.L. and the hope that turnover in the meanwhile may produce a more favorable result. We’ll see.

MIXED ATTORNEY’S FEES

May 21, 2013 § 1 Comment

The COA decision in Tidmore v. Tidmore, decided May 14, 2013, underscores the mixed attorney’s fee, a fairly common phenomenon in chancery court. It happens when one brings an action combining two or more different causes of action. It could be a contempt and modification, or a divorce with an allegation of contempt of the temporary order, or a suit seeking injunctive relief and sanctions.

In reversing the chancellor’s award of attorney’s fees assessed against Nicole Tidmore in favor of her ex-husband, Michael, the COA, by Judge Irving, said this:

¶10. Nicole argues that the chancellor erred in awarding attorney’s fees to Michael since some of the attorney’s fees were incurred in pursuing a modification of custody. We note that “attorney’s fees are not normally awarded in child custody modification actions.” Mixon v. Sharp, 853 So. 2d 834, 841 (¶32) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). However, it is well established that “[a] chancellor may award attorney’s fees as the result of a contempt action” in a domestic-relations case. Id. “One of the purposes for awarding attorney fees [in a contempt action] is to compensate the prevailing party for losses sustained by reason of the defendant’s noncompliance.” Durr v. Durr, 912 So. 2d 1033, 1040 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Thus, “[n]o showing as to the McKee factors is required” where there is a finding of contempt. Patterson v. Patterson, 20 So. 3d 65, 73 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

¶11. Additionally, Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-23 (Supp. 2012) requires the chancellor to impose attorney’s fees for unsubstantiated allegations of abuse:

If after investigation by the Department of Human Services or final disposition by the youth court or family court allegations of child abuse are found to be without foundation, the chancery court shall order the alleging party to pay all court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the defending party in responding to such allegation.

(Emphasis added).

¶12. In this case, the chancellor ordered Nicole to pay Michael’s attorney’s fees and the GAL fees as follows:

With regard to [Michael’s] claims for attorney’s fees, the [c]ourt finds that the allegations made by [Nicole] are without foundation and furthermore that she was found in contempt . . . . As such, all the [GAL] fees are hereby [assessed] to [Nicole]. [Nicole] shall pay the [GAL] her remaining fees in the amount of $1,200.00 along with reimbursing [Michael] the [GAL] fees he initially paid in the amount of $1,500.00 within sixty (60) days of September 26, 2011.

After examining the [McKee factors], the [c]ourt finds that [Michael] is entitled to attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,076.01[,] which the [c]ourt finds were reasonable and necessary in prosecuting the contempt case against [Nicole], and further in defending the unsubstantiated allegations of abuse and/or neglect[,] and a judgment is hereby entered for the same. As such[,] a total judgment is hereby entered against [Nicole] in the amount of $9,733.91 in favor of [Michael], which shall be paid within sixty (60) days of September 26, 2011[,] along with the remaining $1,200.00 in [GAL] fees[,] which shall be paid directly to the [GAL] within sixty (60) days of September 26, 2011[.]

¶13. We cannot say that the chancellor abused his discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Michael for his successful prosecution of the contempt charges against Nicole or for his defense against the baseless allegations of abuse. We also find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in ordering Nicole to pay the GAL fees. The chancellor found Nicole in contempt for claiming the children as dependents on her 2008 tax return and for withholding one of the children from Michael on one occasion. The chancellor did not find Michael in contempt for any of the claims asserted by Nicole. Additionally, the chancellor determined that Nicole’s allegations of abuse against Michael were unsubstantiated. The chancellor’s order was clear that the fees were awarded because of the unsubstantiated abuse allegations and because of Nicole’s contemptuous conduct.

¶14. While Michael is certainly entitled to an award of attorney’s fees for the contempt and for his defense against the abuse allegations, it is not clear that the total amount of $8,076.11 is only for the contempt and defense against the abuse allegations. In fact, an exhibit shows that at least part of the fees awarded were for the modification-of-child-custody proceedings. As such, the court erred in awarding the full amount of the attorney’s bill. Although there may be difficulty in allocating the attorney’s fees, the chancellor should nonetheless make that determination. Therefore, the amount of the award of attorney’s fees is reversed and this issue is remanded to the chancellor for a determination of the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded to Michael for the contempt proceedings and defense against the baseless abuse allegations.

So another attorney’s fee award bites the dust for lack of an essential finding. It’s not clear from the opinion whether the chancellor had all the information he needed to make the allocation of fees as lucid as it could or should have been.

Remember to give the judge all the essential information he or she needs to make a decision that would stand up if there is an appeal. All the judge needed here was time records or testimony to show how the hours devoted to the case by the attorney were spent as to each issue. There is no one who knows that better than the attorney who did the work. Naturally, there will be some judgment calls as to how to categorize various activities, but that is what cross examination is for, isn’t it?

While we’re on the issue of attorney’s fees, the COA touched on Michael’s request for an appellate attorney’s fee:

¶15. Michael also asks this court to order Nicole to pay his attorney’s fees on appeal. “When allowed, this Court has generally granted attorney’s fees in the amount of one-half of what was awarded [by the chancellor].” Carroll v. Carroll, 98 So. 3d 476, 483 (¶26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Lauro v. Lauro, 924 So. 2d 584, 592 (¶33) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)). However, because Nicole prevails on this issue, Michael is not entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal.

NON-SUPPORT AGREEMENTS

March 25, 2013 § 3 Comments

I am regularly presented PSA’s and agreed judgments that include a provision that the non-custodial parent will not pay any child support to the custodian. I don’t like it, for reasons that I have expounded on here before.

In my opinion, such agreements are not only undesirable, they are void.

The case of Houck v. Ousterhout, 861 So.2d 1000 (Miss. 2003) may be dispositive. Timothy James Houck and his former wife, Guyolyn Ousterhout, had been involved in various modifications and contempt actions as their children moved in varying numbers from household to household. In 1996, after several inconclusive skirmishes in court, they entered into an agreed judgment that recited that “[m]aterial changes ha[d] occurred in the life of Timothy … which prevent[ed] him from being able to pay his child support as directed. They agreed that Timothy would pay Guyolyn $1,500 in exchange for her waiver of any claim to “past, present and future child support payments,” and further that they agreed “to forever release one another from any obligation, now or in the future, of child support payments by or to either party.”

Notwithstanding the agreement, the parties found themselves yet again in litigation, in which Guyolyn asked, among other things, for nullification of the agreed order. The chancellor did void the agreed judgment as against public policy, and awarded Guyolyn a judgment against Timothy in the sum of $89,848.65. Timothy appealed.

The MSSC affirmed:

¶ 8. The modification relieving Houck of any obligation to pay child support to a custodial parent is null and void. Child support payments are made to the custodial parent for the benefit of the child. Tanner v. Roland, 598 So.2d 783, 786 (Miss.1992); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 574 So.2d 1376, 1381 (Miss.1991). The child’s right to his parent’s support cannot be bargained or contracted away by his parents. Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Calton v. Calton, 485 So.2d 309, 310-11 (Miss.1986).

¶ 9. We have consistently held that child support payments vest in the child as they accrue. Once they have become vested, just as they cannot be contracted away by the parents, they cannot be modified or forgiven by the courts. Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Varner v. Varner, 588 So.2d 428, 432-33 (Miss.1991); Premeaux v. Smith, 569 So.2d 681, 685 (Miss.1990); Thurman v. Thurman, 559 So.2d 1014, 1016-17 (Miss.1990); Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So.2d 839, 847 (Miss.1990); Brand v. Brand, 482 So.2d 236, 237 (Miss.1986). Each payment that becomes due and remains unpaid “becomes ‘a judgment’ against the supporting parent.” Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Brand, 482 So.2d at 237; Cunliffe v. Swartzfager, 437 So.2d 43, 45-46 (Miss.1983); Howard v. Howard, 191 So.2d 528, 531 (Miss.1966). The only defense thereto is payment. Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Varner, 588 So.2d at 433. That two of the children are now emancipated does not preclude Ousterhout from seeking recovery of the arrearage from Houck. Tanner, 598 So.2d at 786; Varner, 588 So.2d at 433.

¶ 10. Accrued child support payments cannot be extinguished by a court: “A court cannot relieve the civil liability for support payments that have already accrued.” Hailey v. Holden, 457 So.2d 947, 951 (Miss.1984) (citing Cunliffe, 437 So.2d at 43; Duncan v. Duncan, 417 So.2d 908 (Miss.1982); Howard, 191 So.2d at 528). We have found a chancellor to be in error for suspending execution on a judgment for past due child support. Brand, 482 So.2d at 238-39. We have likewise held that a chancellor erred in finding that payment of only that part of the past due child support which had accrued prior to the warring couple’s protracted child support litigation extinguished his liability. Cumberland, 564 So.2d at 847-48; see also Thurman, 559 So.2d at 1016-17 (Where a supporting parent had paid roughly half the amount owed under a prior decree for two months and none during the third month in question, the chancellor erred in finding that the parent was liable only for the difference between the unpaid amounts and the greatly reduced modified monthly obligation.). [Emphasis added]

To me, the principle is crystal clear: the chancellor can not approve an agreement that relieves a parent of the duty to support his or her child, either prospectively or retroactively.

A UCCJEA TUG-OF-WAR

March 6, 2013 § Leave a comment

Many lawyers believe that the six-month provision of the UCCJEA fixes jurisdiction in the home state of the child. That’s not always the case, though.

Take, for instance, the case of Clifton v. Shannon, decided by the COA June 26, 2012.

Thomas and Dawn Clifton were divorced in DeSoto County in 1999. Dawn was awarded physical custody of their three-year-old daughter, Ashley, and they were to share joint legal custody. Thomas had reasonable visitation.

In December, 2005, Dawn moved to Colorado and remarried. In 2006, they entered into an agreed judgment adjusting visitation to accommodate the move.

In 2010, Thomas filed a petition in the Chancery Court of DeSoto County seeking modification of custody an an adjudication of contempt.

Dawn objected to jurisdiction, pointing out that Ashley’s home had been in Colorado for the preceding four-and-one-half years, and that there were no significant connections to Mississippi that would justify exercise of jurisdiction.

The chancellor took jurisdiction and awarded Thomas custody, based primarily on Ashley’s preference, and Dawn appealed. She challenged both jurisdiction and the chancellor’s substantive ruling.

On the issue of jurisdiction, here’s what Judge Fair’s opinion stated:

¶7. “Whether a court had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to hear a child-custody dispute is a question of law, which we review de novo.” Miller v. Mills, 64 So. 3d 1023, 1026 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Yeager v. Kittrell, 35 So. 3d 1221, 1223 (¶¶12, 14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)). However, the factual findings underpinning the jurisdiction question are reviewed under the familiar substantial evidence and abuse of discretion standard. See White v. White, 26 So. 3d 342, 346-48 (¶¶10, 14) (Miss. 2010).

¶8. In Yeager, this Court stated “[a] court issuing an initial determination has continuing jurisdiction over the parties; no other court may modify the decree.” Yeager, 35 So. 3d at 1224 (¶16) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 93-27-201 (Supp. 2009)). However, even if only one party remains in the state, a second state may modify the order if the issuing court finds that neither the child, nor the child and one parent, have a significant connection with the state, and that substantial evidence is no longer available in the issuing state. Only the issuing state may make this determination. Id. (internal citation omitted).

¶9. There was sufficient evidence that Ashley still maintained a significant connection to Mississippi because her father and extended family reside here. In a recent opinion addressing a chancery court’s jurisdiction over a proceeding for modification of custody, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that since the father had continuously resided in Mississippi:

[I]t was within the chancellor’s discretion to determine that both the child and [the father] had a “significant connection with this state.” Therefore, the chancery court properly has retained continuous, exclusive jurisdiction over [the] matter . . . . White v. White, 26 So. 3d 342, 347-48 (¶14) (Miss. 2010).

¶10. The DeSoto County Chancery Court was the court of original jurisdiction. Nothing in the record suggests that the chancellor erred in retaining jurisdiction. In fact, the Colorado court, where Dawn filed another custody action, had declined jurisdiction on the emergency relief that was requested and did not assume jurisdiction.

¶11. Dawn further contends that Mississippi is an inconvenient forum, as “the overwhelming abundance of substantial evidence and witnesses” with regard to the child’s home life are located in Colorado. She cites Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-27-207, which states in pertinent part:

(1) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court’s own motion, or request of another court.

(2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(a) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;

(b) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;

(d) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;

(e) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;

(f) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;

(g) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and

(h) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.

(Emphasis added.)

¶12. While Colorado may have been a more convenient forum for Dawn, the chancery court is endowed with the discretion to make that decision. Prior custody proceedings were conducted in Mississippi, and Ashley spent several weeks in Mississippi during the year visiting her father and family. We find that Mississippi was an appropriate forum and that the chancery court properly retained exclusive jurisdiction.

What you can draw from this aspect of the case is that the chancellor will have broad discretion in making a determination whether as the court of original jurisdiction it should take jurisdiction. You would be wise to make a record invoking as many of the factors set out in 93-27-207 as are applicable and favorable to your client’s side of the case. That discretion is not unfettered; there should be some basis in the record to support it. It seems to me that “The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation …” and “The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence …” would be the key factors on which to focus your efforts.

Another lesson: don’t stop your analysis with where the home state of the child is located. That’s only one of a number of factors.

Remember that only the issuing state may determine whether it should continue to exercise jurisdiction. And MCA 93-27-202(1) provides that the original state no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction after both parents have moved from the original state.

ALIMONY APPLES AND ALIMONY ORANGES

February 25, 2013 § 1 Comment

It was long the rule in Mississippi that only several forms of alimony were available, either by adjudication or agreement, and any variance from those forms was either reversible error or would be charcaterized by the appellate court as what its features dictated. See, e.g., Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So.2d 793, 795 (Miss. 1990). Unless otherwise specified by the trial court or from the context, alimony was presumed to be periodic. Wray v. Wray, 394 So.2d 1341, 1345 (Miss. 1981).

Then the appellate courts began to approve so-called “hybrid” agreements that mixed features of property settlement with alimony features, as in East v. East, 493 So.2d 927, 929 (Miss. 1986), where unmodifiable payments of $5,000 a month to the ex-wife would continue whether husband remarried or dies, but would terminate on wife’s death. The courts continued to affirm an array of such arrangements, but cautioned in McDonald v. McDonald, 683 So.2d 929, 933 (Miss. 1996), that the parties should be careful in drafting agreements with hybrid arrangements, and that, if the agreement is unclear, the payments will be presumed to be periodic alimony.

The problem with “hybrid” alimony is in the drafting. The devil is in the ambiguity.

The latest incarnation is Hollis v. Baker, a COA case decided February 12, 2013, in which the parties had agreed to the following provision:

[Hollis] shall pay [Baker] $500 . . . in alimony per month beginning on the first day of the month after the sale of the marital home is finalized. [Hollis] will increase alimony to $1,000 . . . per month beginning the month after child support ceases, to continue for the life of [Baker]. In the event [Baker] dies, these $1,000 . . . per month payments shall be made to the minor child until the death of [Hollis].

Hollis sued to modify the obligation because Baker had remarried, and Baker took the position that the payments were unmodifiable. The chancellor ruled for Baker because Hollis had agreed to continue making the payments even beyond Baker’s death, which logically would extend beyond her remarriage. Hollis appealed.

The COA reversed, and, since so much of the opinion, written by Judge Roberts, is of some import for practitioners, I quote at length here:

¶11. Over fifteen years ago, the Mississippi Supreme Court urged parties, attorneys, and judges to carefully draft property-settlement agreements to avoid future confusion and litigation over ambiguously drafted provisions. McDonald v. McDonald, 683 So. 2d 929, 932-33 (Miss. 1996). In McDonald, the supreme court stated:

[The] freedom to contract is not absolute, however, and parties and judges should be mindful of the traditional characteristics of lump[-]sum and periodic alimony in drafting their agreements and decrees for alimony payments. When possible, it would be advisable for parties and judges to pattern their alimony agreements and decrees for non-modifiable lump[-]sum alimony according to established precedent of this Court.

Id. at 932. The case before us is illustrative of the need for clear and careful drafting of property-settlement agreement provisions, particularly as these provisions relate to periodic monthly payments being considered by the parties as alimony or as a contractual division of marital property.

¶12. Hollis’s sole issue on appeal involves the chancery court’s finding that the provision in the agreement regarding alimony required him to continue paying Baker alimony even after she remarried. According to Hollis, this alimony provision is permanent periodic alimony, making it subject to termination upon remarriage of the alimony recipient.

¶13. There are four types of alimony available in Mississippi: periodic, lump sum, rehabilitative, and reimbursement. West v. West, 891 So. 2d 203, 212 (¶20) (Miss. 2004). “As a general rule, periodic alimony has no fixed termination date; instead, it automatically terminates at the death of the obligor or the remarriage of the obligee.” Id. at (¶21) (emphasis added). There is no dispute that permanent periodic alimony is modifiable and terminable even within the context of a property-settlement agreement. See Taylor v. Taylor, 392 So. 2d 1145, 1146-47 (Miss. 1981); Stone v. Stone, 385 So. 2d 610, 613 (Miss. 1980); Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 268, 72 So. 2d 677, 678 (1954). Additionally, it is accepted that there are other provisions of a property-settlement agreement that are not modifiable. See McDonald v. McDonald, 683 So. 2d 929, 932-33 (Miss. 1996). Ultimately, the issue before us is whether the chancery court erred in determining that this provision was a property settlement provision and not permanent periodic alimony subject to termination upon remarriage of the recipient.

¶14. At issue is a portion of the agreement titled Child Custody and Property-Settlement Agreement that was signed by both Hollis and Baker prior to their divorce and incorporated into their divorce decree by the chancery court. Among other things, this agreement detailed the amount of alimony Hollis would pay Baker. Paragraph IV, subsection H of the agreement provides as follows:

¶15. This provision was modified by the chancery court on July 17, 2006. The chancery court stated in its July 17, 2006 decree and judgment that “the alimony [Hollis] is currently paying should be reduced from the sum of $500 . . . per month, to $350 . . . [per] month, effective July 1, 2006.” By modifying this provision, the chancery court acknowledged that this alimony was permanent periodic alimony and not some type of hybrid of alimony and property settlement as Baker claims. It is well settled that permanent periodic alimony is subject to modification and ceases upon the recipient’s remarriage or the payor’s death. See McDonald, 683 So. 2d at 931; Hubbard v. Hubbard, 656 So. 2d 124, 129 (Miss. 1995); Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So. 2d 793, 794 (Miss. 1990); Wray v. Wray, 394 So. 2d 1341, 1344 (Miss. 1981).

¶16. In the dissent authored by Judge Fair, he would find that the chancellor was correct in viewing Hollis’s obligation to continue paying alimony as a non-modifiable contract obligation between the parties. To support this position, he cites to In re Kennington’s Estate, 204 So. 2d 444, 445 (Miss. 1967) involving a settlement agreement between husband and wife that he would pay her a monthly sum until she died or was remarried and that it would be a binding obligation upon his estate. The following language was included in the provision:

[Husband] shall pay [wife $750] on June 1, 1954, and [$750] on the first day of each successive month thereafter throughout the lifetime of said [wife], or until she remarries. If she remarries, this [provision] shall thereafter be ineffective but this [provision] shall not be affected by the death of [husband]. [Husband] binds himself, his heirs, executors and assigns, to this covenant and obligation to her even after his death.

Id. at 445-46. In its opinion, the supreme court quoted the following language of the chancery court’s opinion: “The attorneys for the respective parties understood the legal differences between alimony and a property settlement and carefully and skillfully avoided the death of the then husband having any affect on the agreed payment each month. . . . In the [above-quoted provision] of this agreement[,] there is no doubt as to the intention of the parties.” Id. at 447. The supreme court then stated that “[i]t was the manifest intention of the parties that the obligation to make the payment should survive the death of [husband].” Id. at 449. We submit that the facts of the current case are easily distinguishable from the facts in Kennington primarily on the ground that the provision in the current case is completely silent as to whether alimony terminates upon her remarriage. In the above quoted language of Kennington, the provision explicitly states that it is the intent of the parties to have the $750 payments continue beyond the husband’s life. Thus, it was abundantly clear that as long as wife did not remarry, she was entitled to payment by either husband or husband’s estate for the remainder of her life.

¶17. The provision in the current case is simply silent on whether Hollis would continue paying Baker alimony after her remarriage. Moreover, in the present case, a prior judicial determination that the monthly payments for support were alimony subject to modification had been made by the chancellor, a determination from which Baker did not appeal. Such circumstance did not exist in Kennington. Without such an explicit provision requiring Hollis to continue alimony payments beyond Baker’s remarriage, we decline to require Hollis to continue such payments. Baker has a new husband capable of providing adequate spousal support.

¶18. Because this type of alimony terminates upon the subsequent marriage of the recipient, Hollis’s obligation to continue paying Baker alimony was terminated when Baker remarried in April 2010; therefore, we reverse and render the chancery court’s decision on this issue and the finding that Hollis was in contempt for his missed alimony payments after Baker remarried.

Whether you agree or disagree with the COA’s conclusion here, the point is made that, unless you specifically address survivability and modifiability of alimony with respect to remarriage, death and changes in circumstances, the questions arising therefrom will be resolved in favor of holding it to be periodic alimony, with all of the attendant and resulting attributes. In other words, the default setting is periodic alimony, unless you clearly, unequivocally and unambiguously change the setting.

I am sure Ms. Baker was somewhat disappointed with the outcome of this case. She now has no alimony, where before she anticipated that it would continue even beyond the grave for the benefit of her child.

Maybe this is one of those cases where the MSSC will give it another look and another spin. But I would not count on it. Draftsmanship would have made all the difference here.

WHEN VISITATION GOES BAD

October 30, 2012 § 1 Comment

It’s becoming more customary for the parties to provide in custody settlements for the non-custodial parent to have more visitation than the usual “standard visitation” (i.e., every other weekend, split of holidays, and some summer). Sometimes it works splendidly. When it does not, it can be a mess.

The latter is what happened in the COA case of Goolsby v. Crane, decided October 23, 2012. In that case, Michael Goolsby and his ex-wife, Angela Crane, agreed that Angela would have sole physical custody, and Michael would have visitation with his daughters every other weekend, and, in addition, from Monday afternoon to the return to school on Wednesday morning in non-weekend-viaitation weeks. After a while the parties agreed to deviate from the schedule to move Michael’s mid-week visitation to Wednesday-to-Friday-morning.

Things began to unravel when Angela filed pleadings to get an increase in child support and a family master increased it by $171 a month and ordered Michael to pay DHS $250 in attorney’s fees.

Michael filed a Rule 59 motion and then filed a counter-petition to modify custody and child support. He wanted the custody changed to joint physical due to the extent of his visitation, and he wanted the child support reduced based on the amount of time he had the children with him.

At trial the chancellor rejected the modification, finding that there was no proof of a material change in circumstances that adversely affected the children to the extent that custody should be changed. He did, however, find that the visitation schedule was not working, and he modified it to conform more to “standard” visitation, eliminating the mid-week visitation. His findings were based primarily on the testimony of the testimony of the 13-year-old daughter, who said that it interfered with her school work and made her uncomfortable for some other, personal reasons. The chancellor also increased the child support, although he recalculated it and found a figure somewhat less than that determined by the family master.

Michael appealed. His arguments and the COA’s conclusions:

The court rejected the argumant that it was error for the chancellor to refuse to modify custody, and then to modify visitation. The COA pointed out that there was a substantial basis to support both decisions. All that needs to be shown to change custody is that the visitation schedule is not working, and there was ample proof here.
The extent of visitation that was agreed did not amount to a relinquishment of control or abandonment of responsibility by Angela that would amount to a material change. The cases cited by the court beginning at ¶ 22 are cases you need to have in your repertoire of important modification cases, particularly Arnold v. Conwill, 562 So.2d 97, 100 (Miss. 1990), a case I’ve discussed here before.
And, finally, the COA rejected (beginning at ¶ 29) Michael’s argument that liberal visitation by the non-custodial parent is tantamount to joint legal custody.

When you craft an agreement incorporating visitation that extends beyond the usual, make sure the language leaves no doubt as to who has what form of custody. Don’t swap around terms like “visitation” and “custodial time.” Instead of simply going along with what your client is proposing for visitation, play devil’s advocate and tease out some of the possible pitfalls that you’ve experienced and that your client may not even have thought of. Are there other ways to provide more time for the non-custodial parent that might not be so disruptive as they proved to be in Goolsby? One size does not fit all.

THE PRESUMPTION OF MUTUAL SUPPORT

October 29, 2012 § 1 Comment

The COA decision in Pritchard v. Pritchard, handed down October 23, 2012, is the most recent alimony termination case in which the courts have addressed the rule that cohabitation creates a presumption of mutual support, shifting the burden to the recipient spouse to produce evidence that there is no mutual support within the de facto marriage.

You need to read Pritchard yourself to appreciate the scope of mutual support that was enough to trigger the presumption. I won’t rehash them here. But here are a few nuggets gleaned from Judge Griffis’s decision (which quotes Professor Bell’s treatise):

Recipient-wife and another man had a sexual relationship, and she provided him a truck and lodging rent-free. In return, he built a deck, installed a floor, moved furniture, did yard work, and carried out the garbage. The trial court should have considered this mutual support. Scharwath v. Scharwath, 702 So.2d 1210 (Miss.App. 1997).
A de facto marriage can terminate alimony, as where a couple was engaged without immediate plans to marry, solely to prolong the receipt of alimony. Martin v. Martin, 751 So.2d 1132, 1136 (Miss. App. 1999).
A similar result in Pope v. Pope, 803 So.2d 499, 504 (Miss.App. 2002).
Where the recipient spouse pays for her live-in’s psychological evaluation, car tag, attorney’s fees, clothes, cell phone, job materials, and motel room, and the live-in provides household services and chores such as maintenance and repair of the home, the presumption is triggered. Burrus v. Burrus, 926 So.2d 618, 621 (Miss.App. 2006).

In Pritchard, the COA found that the chancellor applied the correct legal standard, but that there was not sufficient evidence to support the chancellor’s decision that the presumption was overcome by proof of non-mutual support. The COA reversed and rendered.

CAVEAT: a brief period of cohabitation may not trigger the presumption. See, Tillman v. Tillman, 809 So.2d 767, 770 (Miss.App. 2002).

These cases are fact-intensive. Before you go thrashing off into this swamp, you would do well to study what Professor Bell has to say, and read as many cases on point that you can find. There has to be either cohabitation for more than a short period coupled with mutual support, or there must be a de facto marriage. The latter is a more elusive concept. You will likely need a substantial base of discovery or PI work to do the job.

Where Am I?