Dix v. Dix
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00293-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-07-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of alimony - Modification of child support Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-13-2005 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Jim Persons Disposition: CHANCELLOR DENIED MOTION TO MODIFY. Case Number: 97-03036 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brian R. Dix |
HERBERT J. STELLY |
||
| Appellee: | Karen R. Dix | DEAN HOLLEMAN |
|
|
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 alimony - Modification of child support |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brian Dix and Karen Dix were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. The couple agreed to a property settlement, alimony payments and child custody arrangements, which were incorporated into the final decree for divorce. Brian filed a motion for modification requesting a modification by reduction or elimination of his obligation to pay Karen periodic alimony and requesting that his child support obligation for his oldest child, now in college, be offset by his payments for college education. The court denied the motion, and Brian appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Modification of alimony Brian argues that the trial court erred in holding his complaint of modification to a higher scrutiny than other motions for modification, which caused a faulty finding that there was no substantial and material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of periodic alimony While the chancellor used a heightened scrutiny to decide whether to modify the agreed order of divorce, the standard must still be met that a material change in circumstances occurred as a result of after arising circumstances not reasonably anticipated at the time of agreement. The trial court correctly compared the respective positions of the parties at the time of the request for modification in relation to their positions at the time of the divorce. Brian is in a much better financial position than Karen. As a nurse practitioner for a health clinic, Karen earns approximately $60,000 each year. Brian is a successful anesthesiologist, with an average adjusted gross income of $534,209 from 1997 through 2003. At the time of trial, his monthly gross earned income was approximately $43,000 per month. In addition, Brian admits that he continues to lead an affluent lifestyle. Purchasing non-necessity material items on credit is of Brian’s own volition and as such, is not relevant to the modification analysis. Thus, there was substantial evidence that Brian did not meet the requirements necessary for a material or substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a downward modification in periodic alimony. Issue 2: Child support Since one of the children is at college and no longer resides full-time in his mother’s home, Brian argues he should no longer be required to pay additional living expenses in the form of child support to Karen. The custodial parent is awarded child support for the benefit and protection of the child, and the custodial parent is under a fiduciary duty to hold and use them for the benefit of the child. Karen has paramount physical custody of the four children. She testified that she gives the son approximately $400 a month so that he may pay his car insurance. She also uses a portion of his child support payment to provide for him when he comes home for visits and to maintain the household for the rest of the family. Per the couple’s agreement, Brian offered to pay for all of the tuition, room and board, textbooks and other reasonable expenses for his children should they attend college. Reducing the child support payments to Karen once the children left home was not part of that agreement. Thus, there is no error in the chancellor’s judgment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
