Hall v. Williams
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01998-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-15-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of child support - Section 43-19-101(4) - Application of guidelines Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-17-2009 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: George Ward Disposition: Request for Modifications of Child Support Denied Case Number: 97-353 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jennifer Marie Horner Williams (Hall) |
WALTER KEVIN COLBERT, TIM COTTON |
||
| Appellee: | William V. Williams, III | LEVOY BRYANT AGNEW IV, LEE B. AGNEW JR. |
|
|
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 - Section 43-19-101(4) - Application of guidelines |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jennifer Marie Horner Williams (Hall) filed a complaint for modification of the judgment and for citation of contempt. In support of her request for modification, Hall stated that: her son was attending private school; that his financial needs had increased since he entered school; and her ex-husband had obtained a higher paying job. A final order was entered increasing the child support to $660 per month, which was 14% of William Williams III’s adjusted monthly income. Additionally, because Hall had moved to Hattiesburg, the chancery court ordered summer visitation to alternate between the parents every two weeks. Williams appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in 2001. In 2007, Hall filed a complaint for modification of judgment and citation of contempt. Hall alleged that modification was warranted based on the couple’s son having reached a more advanced age and having significantly higher expenses. After hearing testimony from both parties, the chancellor found that modification of child support was warranted due to the son’s advancement in age and his involvement in additional activities. The court determined that child support would be approximately $1,500 a month or 14%. The chancellor ordered that the visitation should be amended to include that the parties find a mutual venue located between the parties’ respective residences to meet to exchange their son. Hall appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hall argues that the chancellor erred in deducting $1,600 per month from Williams’s income for support of his two step-children, while only allowing $660 per month for the support of his natural son. With or without the deduction, Williams’s income is still greater than $50,000. Therefore, the chancellor would still have been required under section 43-19-101(4) to make a written finding as to whether or not the suggested statutory percentage was reasonable. The facts illustrate that 14% of Williams monthly adjusted gross income is greater than his son’s total monthly needs and expenses whether or not the deduction for the step-daughters is applied. Thus, with or without the deduction, Williams would be paying all of his son’s expenses if the guidelines were applied – an outcome the chancellor found to be unreasonable. Because this deduction was not a determining factor in the decision, any error on the part of the chancellor was harmless. Hall also argues that the chancellor erred in determining the application of the statutory guidelines to be unreasonable, and the chancellor failed to make a “written finding” as to the unreasonableness. Awards of child support in Mississippi are subject to the child-support guidelines set forth in section 43-19-101. In his final judgment, the chancellor determined that Williams’s adjusted gross income was greater than $50,000. Accordingly, the chancellor went into a detailed discussion as to whether or not the application of the guidelines would be unreasonable. The chancellor did not abuse his discretion in deviating from the guidelines, nor did the chancellor fail to make any written findings. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
