Nicholas v. Nicholas
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01982-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2003 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt – Laches – Equitable estoppel – Cost of living escalation - Division of future dividends – Alimony - Present financial condition Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-27-2001 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: William H. Singletary Disposition: APPELLANT FOUND IN CONTEMPT AND ORDERED TO PAY JUDGMENT OF $461,500.72 FOR ARREARAGES. Case Number: 117,598 S/2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Samuel John Nicholas, Jr. |
DAVID KENT MCGOWAN |
||
| Appellee: | Donna Evans Nicholas | B. RUTH JOHNSON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contempt – Laches – Equitable estoppel – Cost of living escalation - Division of future dividends – Alimony - Present financial condition |
| Summary of the Facts: | Donna Nicholas filed a petition for contempt based on Sam Nicholas’s failure to comply with a property settlement agreement dating back to 1981. The court found Sam to be in contempt and ordered him to pay an alimony arrearage of $341,816.48, a stock dividend division arrearage of $111,500, and an income tax arrearage of $10,248, which was payable directly to the taxing authorities; awarded Donna $10,682.45 in attorney's fees; found that Sam was entitled to a setoff of $9,680 for property taxes which he had paid on the former marital residence; and reduced the alimony required by the settlement agreement from $3,900 to $3,500 per month. Sam appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Laches and equitable estoppel Sam argues that laches and/or equitable estoppel should preclude Donna from enforcing any of the settlement agreement's financial provisions, except those that he had already met. Because the doctrine of laches is simply inapplicable where a claim has not yet been barred by the applicable statute of limitations, laches is inapplicable to the claims involved on appeal. Laches requires the party seeking to assert the defense to show delay in asserting a right or claim, that the delay was not excusable, and that there was undue prejudice to the party against whom the claim is asserted. The doctrine of equitable estoppel requires proof of a belief and reliance on some representation, change of position as a result of the representation, and detriment or prejudice caused by the change of position. In this case, the evidence supported a finding that Donna did not make any representation that she intended to waive any rights given to her by the settlement agreement. Issue 2: Cost of living escalation Sam admits that the Supreme Court has held that a cost of living escalation clause, such as that found in this case, is enforceable. Therefore, the court is affirmed on this issue. Issue 3: Division of future dividends Sam argues that the court applied an erroneous legal standard in awarding one-half of his accrued dividends from his Southland Management Corporation Stock, because the court should have limited Donna’s recovery under the settlement agreement to the wife's needs and the husband's ability to pay. Settlement agreements not evidencing fraud or overreaching will be enforced. The record does not reflect any fraud or overreaching on Donna’s part. Issue 4: Alimony Sam argues that the court did not address the issue of whether the clause of the settlement agreement which converted child support to alimony when the children reached majority was enforceable. However, the court relied upon the correct legal standard which encourages enforcement of property settlements. Issue 5: Present financial condition Sam argues that he is presently unable to comply with paying either the judgment or the reduced amount of alimony the court awarded. However, his personal income statement, filed on January 31, 2001, showed annual income of $445,000, total assets of $1,156,000, liabilities of $510,000, and net worth of $655,000. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
