Keith v. Purvis


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CA-00495-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00495-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-27-2008
Opinion Author: CARLTON, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Child support - Offsetting benefits - Credit of excess amounts
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Ishee, J., specially concurs with separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Irving, J. with separate written opinion.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Chandler, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 02-23-2007
Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court
Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr.
Disposition: DENIED FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY JUDGMENT
Case Number: 00-0197-GN-D

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JACKIE KEITH




DEBORAH J. GAMBRELL



 

Appellee: DEANNA PURVIS ROBERT R. MARSHALL  

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 - Offsetting benefits - Credit of excess amounts

Summary of the Facts: In 2000, the chancery court entered a judgment of paternity that determined Jackie Keith to be the natural father of Jade Purvis, born to Deanna Purvis. Keith was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $350 per month. In 2001, Keith suffered a stroke. In 2004, Keith and Jade, on Keith’s behalf, became eligible for social security disability benefits. In September 2006, Jade received a lump-sum payment in the amount of $20,164 as back-payment of disability benefits. This check represented disability benefits for the preceding twenty-two months. Thereafter, Jade received monthly disability benefits in the amount of $900.40. Keith met his child support obligations until August 2006, when he ceased making payments upon learning that Jade was receiving disability benefits. Keith then filed a petition to modify judgment. The chancellor rules that Keith was not entitled to retroactive credit or reimbursement for sums tendered to Jade by the Social Security Administration nor for credit for sums that will accrue over and above the ordered support of $350 per month. Keith appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Offsetting benefits Keith argues that the chancellor erred by failing to expressly order that he is entitled to offset the ongoing monthly disability benefits against his monthly child support obligation. Purvis does not contest this issue. Mississippi law is clear that social security benefits received by a minor child based on a non-custodial parent’s retirement or disability are an alternate source of satisfying court-ordered child support obligations and are credited toward the discharge of those obligations. While the chancellor’s order could have been more clearly worded, the chancellor simply determined that Keith was entitled to offset the ongoing disability benefits against his monthly child support obligations up to, but not exceeding, the amount of his court-ordered obligation, which under the chancellor’s order remains at $350 per month. Thus, Keith was not denied the relief he seeks under this assignment of error. Issue 2: Credit of excess amounts Keith argues that he is entitled to credit any amounts by which the monthly disability benefits received by Jade exceed his monthly support obligation against future support obligations arising after Jade reaches the age of eighteen and social security benefits cease. Social security benefits, to the extent that they exceed a non-custodial parent’s monthly support obligation, are equitably deemed a gratuity to the child. Therefore, the excess properly belongs to Jade as a gratuity, not to Keith as an accumulated credit to be applied against future child support obligations accruing when Jade reaches the age of eighteen. At that time, Jade’s receipt of monthly disability benefits will cease; however, her monthly needs will continue, as will Keith’s monthly support obligation. Keith also argues that the chancellor erred in refusing to order Purvis to reimburse him $7,836.50 as overpayment of his child support obligations because he paid his monthly support obligation of $350 each month during the twenty-two-month period also covered by the lump-sum award of retroactive disability benefits later received by Jade. Keith is not entitled to credit for the twenty-two months represented by the lump-sum payment and is likewise not entitled to reimbursement. Because Keith is not entitled to a credit, his claim for reimbursement is essentially a claim of unjust enrichment. However, Keith has not “overpaid” his support obligation, in that, the disability benefits Jade received from the Social Security Administration never belonged to Keith. The benefit inures directly to the child, notwithstanding the prerequisite status of the parent. Thus, the chancellor did not err in denying Keith reimbursement for support payments made during the twenty-two-month period also covered by the lump-sum payment of retroactive disability benefits subsequently received by Jade.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court