McNair v. Clark
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01826-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-24-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Reversed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of child support - Stipulation of parties - Material change in circumstances Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: BARNES, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-26-2005 Appealed from: SCOTT COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: H. David Clark Disposition: PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY GRANTED, ORDERING JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY, SETTING VISITATION SCHEDULE, AND ESTABLIS HING FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR TAX PURPOSES AND FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES. CHILD SUPPORT ORDER GRANTED, INCREASING MCNAIR’S SUPPORT PAYMENTS FROM $297 PER MONTH TO $591 PER MONTH. Case Number: 99-412 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | TOMECHIA MCNAIR |
CHARLES E. LAWRENCE |
||
| Appellee: | BRIDGET N. CLARK | BRETT BAGLEY THOMPSON |
|
|
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 - Stipulation of parties - Material change in circumstances |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tomechia McNair and Bridget Clark are the parents of three children. McNair and Clark entered into a Stipulated Agreement of Support and Admission of Paternity. In that agreement, McNair agreed to pay $297 per month in child support and to provide health insurance for the children. The parties operated under this agreement for almost six years until Clark filed a petition for modification. Clark requested that the terms and conditions of McNair’s child support obligations be increased to include payments for school uniforms, medical costs not covered by insurance, extracurricular activities, and college expenses. McNair filed a counterclaim seeking visitation rights and joint legal custody of the three minor children. The parties eventually reached an agreement on all issues except the modification of McNair’s child support payments. The chancellor calculated McNair’s child support payments at $591 per month. McNair appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Stipulation of parties The chancellor found that the issue of a material change in circumstances, the predicate finding necessary for a modification of a child support order, was not before the court at the time of the hearing on Clark’s petition for modification because the parties stipulated that there was, in fact, a material change in circumstances. However, the parties did not stipulate that a material change in circumstances had occurred and the chancellor erred in failing to consider the issue. McNair not only responded to Clark’s petition and denied that Clark was entitled to an increase in child support, McNair counterclaimed for a modification in his favor. The pleadings clearly demonstrate that the parties did not agree that a material change in circumstance had occurred, as both Clark and McNair each believed that they were entitled to a modification in their favor. Nothing in the stipulation indicates that McNair and Clark agreed that a material change in circumstances had occurred which warranted an increase in child support. Issue 2: Material change in circumstances The chancellor cites the increased ages of the children, given the six-year period between the first order of support and the petition for modification, the increase in McNair’s salary over that six-year period, and the increased expenses associated with caring for the child who had undergone two brain surgeries as sufficient proof of a material change in circumstances. While the increase in a child’s age alone is an indicator that an increase in support may be warranted, it is not, standing alone, evidence of a material change in circumstances. To find a material change in circumstances based upon increased expenses, the amount of those expenses must not have been foreseeable at the time of the original order, and the parent seeking an increase in child support must state specifically the basis and amounts of those increased expenses. The only evidence before the chancellor was the increased ages of the children and a line-item statement in Clark’s Rule 8.05 financial statement that the children were involved in extra-curricular activities. Without evidence of unforeseeability in either the activities or the amount of those activities, the record cannot support the chancellor’s finding that the increased ages of the children constitutes a material change in circumstances. Also, increased income by the parent paying child support is not, by itself, enough to warrant an increase in child support. With regard to the child’s medical issues which was cited by the chancellor, the only evidence before the chancellor regarding the child’s health were the statements from the insurance company notifying McNair of potential medical expenses. Nothing in those documents indicates that the child will have ongoing or extraordinary medical expenses following the surgeries, and the chancellor heard no testimony regarding the child’s current health status or the need for any future medical treatment. Additionally, the parties stipulated that they would split any future medical costs not covered by insurance; therefore, the chancellor would be overstepping his authority to increase the amount of child support in contradiction to the parties’ stipulation. Therefore, the chancellor erred in increasing McNair’s child support payments from $297 per month to $591 per month. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
