Houck v. Ousterhout
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01024-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-31-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of child support - Nullification of agreed order - Back child support - Interest - Section 75-17-7 Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Easley, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-22-2002 Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court Judge: Johnny Lee Williams Disposition: Voided an agreed order and awarded back support, along with a modification of future child support. Case Number: 15,050-W |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Timothy James Houck |
ORVIS A. SHIYOU |
||
| Appellee: | Guyolyn Ousterhout | PHILIP DAVID BRIDGES |
|
|
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 - Nullification of agreed order - Back child support - Interest - Section 75-17-7 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Timothy Houck and his former wife, Guyolyn Ousterhout, agreed to divide custody of their five children, and entered into an agreed order which relieved Houck of any further obligations for the payment of child support in exchange for a lump sum payment of $1,500. Ousterhout sought nullification of the agreed order. The court voided the order and awarded back support, along with a modification of future child support. Houck appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Agreed order The child's right to his parent's support cannot be bargained or contracted away by his parents. Child support payments vest in the child as they accrue and cannot be contracted away by the parents once they have become vested. Therefore, the chancellor did not err in nullifying the agreed order. Issue 2: Back child support In calculating the award of back child support, the chancellor divided the original $1,200 monthly award by five children and then took into account the amount of time that the two eldest children lived with Houck, the $200 per month that Ousterhout was ordered to pay, and the $1,500 Houck paid in consideration for the agreement. Therefore, there was no error in the chancellor's determination that Houck owed Ousterhout $89,848.65 in back child support. Issue 3: Interest Houck argues that the chancellor erred in awarding interest on the child support at 8% per annum. Pursuant to section 75-17-7, the chancellor had the authority to award interest on delinquent child support payments. Because the child support payments owed by Houck were due over several years in which interest rates fluctuated, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in awarding interest at 8% per annum. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
