Edmonds v. Edmonds, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01270-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2006 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of child support - Emancipation due to incarceration - Attorney’s fees - Section 93-5-23 - Section 93-11-65 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Diaz, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-19-2005 Appealed from: Clay County Chancery Court Judge: Kenneth M. Burns Disposition: Chancellor denied Danny’s motion for termination or reduction of child support after minor child's murder conviction and awarded Appellee Sharon her attorney's fees. Case Number: 18,030B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Danny Edmonds |
WILLIAM PAUL STARKS, II |
||
| Appellee: | Sharon Edmonds and Department of Human Services | PRO SE, LISA LYNN MEGGS |
|
|
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 - Emancipation due to incarceration - Attorney’s fees - Section 93-5-23 - Section 93-11-65 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Danny Edmonds sought termination or reduction of child support payments based on his minor child’s incarceration and subsequent conviction on a murder charge. Sharon Edmonds filed a counter-petition seeking attorney’s fees incurred in the child’s defense. The court denied Danny’s motion but awarded attorney’s fees to Sharon. Danny appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Emancipation Danny argues that the chancellor erred in failing to find that his son was emancipated based on his lengthy incarceration that resulted from his arrest and conviction for murder. Danny argues that since his son has been convicted of murder, sentenced to life in prison, and is now in the care and custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, he is no longer dependent on either of his parents for his daily support and maintenance. The chancellor, in denying Danny’s petitions to terminate child support, recited the statutory grounds for emancipating a minor child under section 95-5-23. However, these statutory grounds for emancipation are not exclusive and other situations, not contemplated by the statute may also establish emancipation. As Danny has failed to point to any case where a court has actually found a minor child to be emancipated based upon his/her incarceration, the son’s incarceration, in and of itself, does not emancipate him from his parents. Furthermore, the testimony at the motion hearing showed his mother still spends roughly $140 per month in support, though this money is deposited into a canteen account at the correctional facility. Thus, there is sufficient evidence in the record for the chancellor to conclude that the son is still receiving support and maintenance from his mother such that the chancellor’s ruling that he was not emancipated (and thus still entitled to support payments from Danny) is not an abuse of discretion. Issue 2: Modification of child support Danny argues that he is entitled to a modification of child support based on a material change in circumstances. Modification of a child support award may be appropriate if it can be shown that there has been a substantial or material change in the circumstances of one or more of the interested parties: the father, the mother, and the child or children, arising subsequent to the entry of the decree to be modified. Sharon admitted that the State of Mississippi was now providing for her son’s food, clothing and shelter, but she stated that she had been putting roughly $140 per month in a canteen account. These are facts which tend to show that a material change in circumstances has occurred since the time of the divorce decree. Though the chancellor considered and rejected Danny’s argument that his support obligation should be terminated, the chancellor’s judgment fails to even address Danny’s alternative request that his child support payments be modified/reduced. This is reversible error. Danny also argues that he should be allowed to make child support payments directly to his son’s commissary account. Danny is procedurally barred from having this issue considered on appeal for failure to cite to any authority. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees Danny argues that the chancellor erred in awarding $5,000 to Sharon to pay for half of the attorney’s fees associated with their son’s criminal appeal. While a chancellor has the discretion to order payment for educational expenses associated with college, this recognition is based on the fact that section 93-11-65(1)(b) specifically provides for payment of educational expenses. There are no provisions within sections 93-5-23 or 93-11-65 that can be extended to payment of criminal defense expenses does not fit under the general provisions of “maintenance,” “support,” or “education” for a child. Additionally, Sharon’s request for appeal-related expenses was untimely, as her son was convicted in July of 2004 and his appeal commenced shortly thereafter, yet the request for attorney’s fees was not made until March 17, 2005. Therefore, the chancellor abused his discretion in awarding $5,000 in attorney’s fees to Sharon. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
