Chapman v. Ward
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00030-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00030-SCT ; 2007-CA-00030-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-12-2008 Opinion Author: CARLTON, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Modification of child support - Workers’ compensation earnings - Section 43-19-101(3)(a) - Reliance on trial transcript - Credit against arrearage Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., and Roberts, J. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Irving, J., Concurs with separate written opinion joined by Chandler, J.; Carlton, J., joins in part. Dissenting Author : BARNES, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : KING, C.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: CHANDLER, J. without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-27-2006 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: William Joseph Lutz Disposition: OPINION AND JUDGMENT REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS ENTERED Case Number: 2001-0086 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JAMES CALVIN CHAPMAN |
SHARON PATTERSON THIBODEAUX |
||
| Appellee: | DEBBIE WARD | ROBERT W. LONG |
|
|
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: | Contempt - Modification of child support - Workers’ compensation earnings - Section 43-19-101(3)(a) - Reliance on trial transcript - Credit against arrearage |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Chapman and Debbie Ward were granted a divorce based on irreconcilable differences in 2001. Debbie was granted primary custody of the couple’s four children. James was granted visitation and ordered to pay child support. In 2006, James filed a petition to hold Debbie in contempt for failing to grant him visitation and to modify the original judgment. Debbie filed an answer and a counterclaim. The chancellor entered an order granting James additional visitation, and relieving him of paying future child support. James was ordered, however, to pay $14,840.85 to Debbie for back child support arrearages already vested and due. James appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Workers’ compensation earnings James argues that the chancellor should not have relied on the trial transcript to determine that he owed Debbie child support from his workers’ compensation earnings. Both section 43-19-101(3)(a) and the transcript of the divorce hearing are, however, perfectly clear that workers’ compensation benefits are income for purposes of child support assessment. James clearly understood what the chancery court intended in its initial decision. The chancellor specifically advised James that child support was payable from “income from any source . . . . If you get income and it is not where a wage order is applicable, then, you’re obligated to take 24 percent of that and send it to [Debbie].” James responded, “Yes, sir.” Issue 2: Credit against arrearage James argues that the chancellor erred in not granting him a credit against his child support arrearage for the Social Security Administration’s award of benefits to the minor children. The chancellor did not commit manifest error in ruling that James owed Debbie the sum of $14,840.85 as child support arrearages due from the workers’ compensation benefits he received beginning in 2002. Additionally, the chancery court did not commit manifest error by refusing to allow James a credit or setoff against this child support arrearage due for sums later received by Debbie in 2006 from the Social Security Administration as a result of James’s disability. James did not come to court with clean hands and was not entitled to such. Allowing credit to James for his arrearages for his failure to pay child support from his workers’ compensation benefits would encourage noncustodial parents to suspend payment while awaiting the receipt of workers’ compensation benefits, social security benefits, or other income, and it also would give them ammunition to pick and choose from which income sources they wish to pay child support. Furthermore, to allow James credit for arrearages when he failed to pay child support from his workers’ compensation benefits clearly conflicts with the policy of meeting the child’s current needs through receipt of regular uninterrupted child support payments. The law allows social security benefits to serve as an alternate source of payment when the benefits are paid in the month the support is due. However, social security benefits cannot extinguish child support arrearages in default. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
