Grissom v. Grissom
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01738-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-20-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of custody - Modification of child support - Contempt Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-12-2005 Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT GRANTED, MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF CHILD CUSTODY AND CONTEMPT DENIED. Case Number: 2000-382 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JON GRISSOM |
RENEE M. PORTER |
||
| Appellee: | BOBBY GRISSOM | THOMAS T. BUCHANAN |
|
|
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 custody - Modification of child support - Contempt |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Bobby and Jon Grissom divorced, they agreed to all matters except child custody, child support, visitation, and attorneys’ fees. The chancellor determined that an award of joint legal and physical custody was in the best interest of the children. Bobby was ordered to pay $165 per month in child support, to maintain medical insurance on the children, and to pay seventy-five percent of any uncovered medical expenses. When Jon filed a motion for contempt, alleging that Bobby owed her $600 in past-due child support and $1,777.09 in past-due medical expenses, Bobby tendered the amount requested to Jon’s attorney, conditioned upon Bobby’s approval of a detailed listing of the medical expenses allegedly owed. Upon receipt of the medical expense listing, Bobby discovered that the majority of the medical expenses claimed occurred prior to the divorce, and immediately moved to reinstate the divorce pleadings in the form of a complaint for relief from judgment. Bobby later filed a motion for temporary relief from his child support and medical expense obligations, citing that he had been laid off from his job, through no fault of his own, as a material change in circumstances warranting relief. Jon filed a counter-complaint seeking a modification of child custody and a judgment for contempt. The chancellor found that each party owed the other mutually off-setting amounts, and denied either party a money judgment against the other. The chancellor further stated that sanctions could be properly imposed against Jon and her attorney, for their repeated failure to follow proper court procedures; however, in the interest of putting the litigation to an end, the chancellor refrained from imposing such sanctions. Additionally, the chancellor found Bobby’s termination from his job to be a material change in circumstances, placing the parties on equal economic footing, and justifying a modification of his child support obligations, so that child support would no longer be required. Further, the chancellor ordered that all future medical insurance and additional medical expenses be divided equally between the parties. Finally, neither Bobby nor Jon was found in contempt. Jon appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Modification of custody In order to modify child custody orders, the moving party must prove that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the original decree, adverse to the best interest of the child. The chancellor noted that by Jon’s own admission, the strained condition between the parties existed at the time of the original judgment of divorce. Accordingly, the chancellor determined that Jon had failed to present any evidence showing a material change adverse to the children since the original judgment. The chancellor applied the appropriate legal standard, and his decision not to modify custody was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion. Issue 2: Modification of child support Jon argues that the court erred in modifying Bobby’s child support and medical expense obligations downwardly because Bobby acted in bad faith, by failing to pursue other employment following his termination from his job. Bobby must prove a material change in circumstances since the entry of the original judgment, that such change was unforeseeable at the time of the original judgment, and that the change was not caused by his willful conduct or bad faith actions. Bad faith, in this context, has generally been defined as an obligor's action to reduce income or assets for the purpose of jeopardizing the interests of his children. Bobby did not voluntarily reduce his income. He was fired. Jon also argues that Bobby cannot seek a downward modification of his child support and medical expense obligations because he was in arrearage thereon when he sought relief. The chancellor found that, although Bobby was in arrearage on his support obligations, his termination from his employment rendered his performance under the original judgment wholly impossible. Further, Bobby sought judicial relief from his support obligations soon after being terminated from his employment and becoming delinquent on his support obligations. Thus, the chancellor’s ruling is supported by substantial evidence found in the record. Jon also argues that the chancellor’s order modifying Bobby’s child support obligations downwardly constituted an unlawful retroactive modification. Child support payments vest in the child as they accrue, and once they have become vested, just as they cannot be contracted away by the parents, they cannot be modified or forgiven by the courts. Therefore, a retroactive reduction in child support would be in error. However, a retroactive reduction did not occur here. Rather, the chancellor reviewed the financial records presented by the parties and determined that they owed each other offsetting sums. Rather than each party pay a money judgment to the other in equal amounts, the chancellor, in effect, declared a nullity. This was a proper exercise of judicial economy. Issue 3: Contempt Jon argues that the court erred in failing to find Bobby in contempt. When a party is unable to pay court ordered support, the proper action for him to take is to promptly file for a modification of support. Since Bobby followed the proper course of action in seeking a modification of his child support and medical expense obligations, a finding of contempt was not proper. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
