Strange v. Strange
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00449-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-07-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Visitation - Child support - Section 43-19-101(3) - Attorney's fees Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee and Carlton, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Griffis, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate written opinion Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Irving, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-30-2009 Appealed from: George County Chancery Court Judge: D. Neil Harris Disposition: CHANCELLOR MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE Case Number: 2003-0320 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Joshua Adam Strange |
MARK H. WATTS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Amy Melinda Strange | MARK ANTHONY MAPLES | ||
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: | Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Visitation - Child support - Section 43-19-101(3) - Attorney's fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Amy Strange and Joshua Strange were granted a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The court divided the marital assets and ordered Joshua to pay child support. After Amy filed a petition seeking modification of the divorce decree, the chancellor ordered Joshua to pay an additional seventy dollars in child support and one-half of the cost of all the minor child’s extracurricular activities up to a maximum amount of $350 a year, modified the visitation schedule, held Joshua in contempt for failing to return the child timely from a scheduled visit, and directed Joshua to pay Amy’s attorney’s fees because of his contempt of the court order. Joshua appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Visitation Joshua argues that because a non-custodial parent is entitled to reasonable standard summer visitation, which he states is five weeks, then he should be awarded five weeks of visitation. Joshua also argues that he should be awarded the entire Thanksgiving holiday during alternating years. There has not been created by statute or court decision any standard schedule of visitation. Since there is no standard visitation, it cannot be said that the chancellor abused his discretion by not requiring standard visitation. The goal in establishing visitation is to encourage and forge as strong of a bond as possible between the child and the non-custodial parent and between the child and the custodial parent under the least disruptive circumstances. The record indicates this is what the chancellor attempted to do. In doing so, he made findings of fact, which are supported by credible evidence in the record; he did not commit manifest error; and he applied the proper legal standard. Issue 2: Child support Joshua argues the chancellor erred by arbitrarily increasing Joshua’s child-support obligation to $430 per month, which exceeds fourteen percent of his adjusted gross income under the statutory guidelines. The statutory guidelines do not establish a ceiling for child support; rather, they represent the floor for what is considered minimally required child support. That presumptive minimal child support is based upon a percentage of the non-custodial parent’s adjusted gross income, as defined in section 43-19-101(3). Child support can be modified if there has been a substantial or material change in the circumstances of one or more of the interested parties. In calculating the increase in child support, the chancellor appears to have incorrectly used the adjusted gross income as defined on Joshua’s 2007 income-tax return rather than as that term is defined by section 43-19-101(3). However, under the overall facts of this case, it is harmless error. The chancellor found that there had been a material change in circumstances, noting that the couple’s daughter was now older with increased needs and increased expenses. Because of these changes, the chancellor found that a deviation from the presumptive minimal level of support was appropriate. He also found that Joshua’s income had increased. Thus, there was no error. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees Joshua argues that because his contempt was not found to have been willful, the chancellor erred in awarding attorney’s fees. A party who is forced to seek the intervention of the chancellor to enforce a decree is entitled to recover the reasonable expenses associated with that action. Amy was forced to seek the chancellor’s intervention to be sure that the terms of the decree regarding visitation were honored. Therefore, she should not have to bear the expenses caused by Joshua’s actions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
