Wooldridge v. Wooldridge
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-00999-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-00999-SCT ; 2001-CA-00999-COA ; 2001-CT-00999-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Rendered in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Law of the case - Domestic services - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Educational expenses - Attorneys’ fees Judge(s) Concurring: King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas and Myers, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, J. Dissenting Author : Southwick, P.J. Dissent Joined By : McMillin, C.J., Irving and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-23-2001 Appealed from: Chickasaw County Chancery Court Judge: James S. Gore Disposition: UNMARRIED PERSON'S FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO RELATIONSHIP VALUED Case Number: 6545 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Steve A. Wooldridge |
C. MICHAEL MALSKI |
||
| Appellee: | Debra K. Wooldridge | REX F. SANDERSON |
|
|
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: | Divorce - Law of the case - Domestic services - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Educational expenses - Attorneys’ fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Steve and Debra Wooldridge divorced, the court ordered Steve to pay $200 per month per child to Debra for child support, to pay all reasonable educational expenses of the couple’s two daughters, to pay medical expenses of the girls, and to reimburse Debra's sister $1,600 for educational expenses. The chancellor also awarded Debra one-half the interest in real estate owned by Steve known as the "Bowles property." Debra appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with orders that the chancellor award Debra a reasonable money judgment for her contribution in caring for the family. After remand, Debra filed a complaint requesting that Steve be ordered to pay child support arrearage and that she be awarded a minimum of $100,800 as compensation for her domestic services and $85,250 for educational expenses, plus attorney's fees and court costs. The court awarded Debra $70,000 for her domestic services, $3,000 in attorney's fees, and ordered Steve to pay 65% of the educational loans. Steve appeals and Debra cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Law of the case Steve argues that the trial court did not err but that the court's obedience to the ruling of the Court of Appeals results in manifest injustice. Whatever is once established as the controlling legal rule of decision, between the same parties in the same case, continues to be the law of the case, so long as there is a similarity of facts. However, where the facts are the same and there has been no change of conditions or situations as that a change of decision would work wrong and injustice, the court may, on the subsequent appeal, correct its former decision where it is manifestly wrong. The law of the case doctrine does not apply to this case because the prior opinion was unpublished and will not affect other subsequent parties or negate the court’s ability to set precedent. Issue 2: Domestic services Steve argues that the court erred in finding Debra is entitled to an equitable award for caregiving services rendered during the time she merely cohabitated with Steve without the benefit of marriage. Where one party to the relationship acts without compensation to perform work or render services to a business enterprise or performs work or services generally regarded as domestic in nature, these are nevertheless economic contributions to the joint accumulation of property between them. Because Debra contributed to the accumulation of property between herself and Steve, the court did not err in awarding Debra a fair money judgment for her services in caring for the children and the home. Issue 3: Expert testimony Steve argues that the court erred in accepting the testimony of a vocational rehabilitation expert who worked primarily with the Social Security Administration. M.R.E. 702 provides that a witness qualified as an expert may testify to scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge which will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Here, the expert consulted numerous economic and wage experts, talked to various homemakers and housewives, consulted the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and arrived at his figure of $100,800 for 70 hours of domestic work per week a homemaker would contribute for service to a family of four. The chancellor used the figure as a guide. It is within the chancellor’s discretion to give what weight he deems appropriate to the testimony of witnesses, including that of an expert. Issue 4: Educational expenses Steve argues that the court erred in concluding that Steve should be responsible for a portion of two educational loans which may have been utilized after the couple’s daughter turned twenty-one. The chancellor determined that since it was unknown whether the daughter used the loan proceeds for expenses incurred before or after her twenty-first birthday, Steve would be responsible for paying 65% of those loans. Such a determination was within the court’s discretion. Issue 5: Attorney’s fees Steve argues that the court erred in ordering him to pay $3,000 toward Debra's attorney's fees, which she incurred in defending against Steve's objection to paying educational expenses. Factors used in determining attorney's fees include the relative financial ability of the parties, the skill and standing of the attorney employed, the nature of the case and novelty and difficulty of the questions at issue, the time and labor required, the usual and customary charge in the community, and the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to the acceptance of the case. Because Debra failed to present any evidence on attorney’s fees, the award is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
