Brawdy v.Howell
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00501-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2003 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Rendered in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of child support - Material change in circumstances - Interest - Section 75-17-7 - Clean hands doctrine Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-08-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Carter O. Bise Disposition: MODIFIED JUDGMENT TO ORDER APPELLANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT; FOUND APPELLEE IN CONTEMPT AND ENTERED JUDGMENT WITH INTEREST. Case Number: 98-01448 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Sondra Robin Howell Brawdy |
WILLIAM W. DREHER, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Brett Alan Howell | DEBORAH KAY HESTER |
|
|
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: | Modification of child support - Material change in circumstances - Interest - Section 75-17-7 - Clean hands doctrine |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Sondra Howell Brawdy and Brett Howell obtained an irreconcilable differences divorce, Howell filed a petition for modification and Brawdy filed a counterclaim. The court found Howell in contempt for unpaid child support and ordered Brawdy to pay monthly child support. Brawdy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Child support Brawdy argues that the court erred in modifying child support without a showing of a material change in circumstances. A child support award can be modified if there has been a substantial or material change in the circumstance of one or more of the interested parties arising subsequent to the entry of the decree to be modified. The only evidence Howell offered to support a change in child support was his testimony that the boys have gotten older and more expensive. While increased age and proven expenses may be considered a material change in circumstances, Howell did not offer any evidence to prove what expenses had increased since the previous order. There was no evidence to suggest that the alleged material change of circumstances was not anticipated or foreseeable at the time of the earlier order. Therefore, the court abused its discretion and erred as a matter of law in granting Howell's request for modification of child support. Issue 2: Interest Brawdy argues that the court erred in awarding interest at the rate of three percent on the child support arrearage. Section 75-17-7 gives the court discretion in setting the rate of interest. There is no authority holding it an abuse of discretion for the chancellor to set interest at a rate of three percent per annum. Issue 3: Clean hands doctrine Brawdy arguess that since Howell was in arrears of his child support payments, the “clean hands” doctrine prevented him from obtaining a modification. The clean hands doctrine prevents a complaining party from obtaining equitable relief in court when he is guilty of willful misconduct in the transaction at issue. The court was within its discretion in finding that Howell was in contempt, but not willful contempt. Because Howell was not found to be in wilful contempt, the clean hands doctrine did not apply. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
