Turnage v. Brooks
| Docket Number: | 2014-CA-00966-COA Linked Case(s): 2014-CA-00966-COA ; 2014-CT-00966-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-23-2016 Opinion Author: Fair, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child support - Sanctions - College expenses - M.R.C.P. 52(a) - Child support credits - Judicial estoppel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Wilson and Greenlee, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: James, J., concurs in part without separate written opinion Procedural History: Trial on Merits Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-04-2014 Appealed from: BOLIVAR COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: HON. EDWARD C. PRISOCK Disposition: Child support awarded Case Number: 2009-0422 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Ellis Turnage |
WILLIAM O. LUCKETT JR., TAMEKIA ROCHELLE GOLIDAY |
|
|
| Appellee: | Ellis Christopher Brooks, a Minor, and Alex Jarrett Brooks, a Minor, by Mary Brooks, Mother and Adult Next Friend | TERRENCE LADWAYNE HIGH | ||
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: | Child support - Sanctions - College expenses - M.R.C.P. 52(a) - Child support credits - Judicial estoppel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ellis Turnage and Mary Brooks had two sons out of wedlock. Brooks sued to establish paternity and secure support for the children. The chancery court entered an order requiring Turnage to pay child support and college expenses of the children. Turnage appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sanctions Turnage argues the chancellor erred in not dismissing the complaint for child support based on what he contends are perjured statements made by Brooks in her deposition, where she denied receiving child support payments from Turnage in the years prior to her filing suit. However, the record contains no motion for sanctions. Thus, this issue is procedurally barred because Turnage never placed the sanctions issue squarely before the trial court for decision. Issue 2: College expenses Turnage argues that the chancellor erred in awarding college expenses for his younger son, because of the lack of a relationship between Turnage and his son. College support can be forfeited by a child whose behavior toward, and relationship with the father, makes the child unworthy of the additional effort and financial burden that will be placed on the father. However, in this case, the chancellor explicitly considered and rejected Turnage’s argument on this point, finding that the relationship between Turnage and the children was “strained” since the lawsuit had been filed, but that there was insufficient evidence it had degenerated to the point where either child had forfeited college support. Also, Turnage’s testimony about his lack of a relationship with his son was conclusory and perfunctory. Turnage also argues that the chancellor erred by failing to deduct Pell Grants received by the children from the amount he was ordered to pay for their college expenses. The chancellor ordered Turnage to pay 80% of the ongoing expenses of the younger son and 100% of three semesters for the older son, who had attended college for approximately five semesters before reaching the age of majority. Neither party requested additional findings of fact and conclusions of law under M.R.C.P. 52(a). The facts about whether the children received Pell Grants were not in dispute, and their nature as grants rather than loans was discussed thoroughly during trial. And while the chancellor did not expressly mention the Pell Grants in his judgment, he also did not order Turnage to pay the full college expenses of either child. Thus, there is no error. Issue 3: Child support credits Turnage argues that the chancellor erred in failing to give him credit for support he provided to the children in kind. Turnage’s argument seems to hinge on his assumption that anything provided by him to the children would have to be classified as child support and deducted from the monthly award. However, this is simply not the case under Mississippi law. Thus, there is no merit to his argument. Issue 4: Judicial estoppel In her complaint, Brooks alleged that Turnage had “voluntarily acknowledged paternity by his prior child support payments.” Turnage argues that this statement should have precluded Brooks from taking an inconsistent position at trial on whether she had previously received child support payments. However, he provides no explanation of how the fact that Turnage had provided two or more child support payments at some indefinite point in the past, even if deemed admitted, would have impacted the judgment he appeals. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
