Corkern v. Corkern


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-01083-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-29-2011
Opinion Author: Lee, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Modification of alimony - Modification of child support - Property settlement agreement - Clean hands doctrine - Material change in circumstances
Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Maxwell, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2009
Appealed from: Amite County Chancery Court
Judge: Debbra K. Halford
Disposition: Denied Plantiff/Appellant's Request to Modify Alimony and Child Support
Case Number: 2005-053

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Robert S. Corkern




T. JACKSON LYONS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Amanda S. Corkern MARK R. HOLMES  

    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 - Property settlement agreement - Clean hands doctrine - Material change in circumstances

    Summary of the Facts: In 2005, Robert and Amanda Corkern were granted an irreconcilable-differences divorce. The parties agreed that Amanda would have physical custody of the couple’s daughter, and Robert would pay alimony and child support. In 2007, Robert filed a complaint for modification of the judgment of divorce. He filed several amended complaints, the last of which asserted that Tri-Lakes Medical Center, his primary source of income, had entered bankruptcy, and he was no longer being paid. In addition to a reduction in child support and alimony, Robert requested additional visitation with the couple’s daughter. Amanda filed a counterclaim, asserting that Robert was in arrears on multiple payments owed to her. The chancellor granted Robert a clarification of his visitation schedule. However, the chancellor denied a reduction in alimony and child support. Robert appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Robert asserts that his gross monthly income is $8,666, and his monthly obligation to Amanda is $9,648. Robert argues that since his obligations to Amanda exceed his total monthly income, he should be entitled to an adjustment based on a provision in the property settlement agreement. In denying Robert’s request, the chancellor found that Robert had failed to present an accurate accounting from which to base a decision. Even Robert’s certified public accountant testified that the chancellor had insufficient information to determine whether Robert had the cash available to pay his bills. The chancellor found that Robert’s losses were “paper losses of income” designed to minimize his tax liability. The chancellor further found that Robert’s request should be denied because Robert had come to court with unclean hands. The clean-hands doctrine prevents a complaining party from obtaining equitable relief in court when he is guilty of willful misconduct in the transaction at issue. Robert had failed to comply with multiple obligations set out in the property-settlement agreement. The chancellor’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Robert also argues that if he failed to prove his obligations to Amanda exceeded thirty percent of his income, he demonstrated a material change of circumstances sufficient to modify child support and alimony. A chancery court may modify an award of support if there has been a material change of circumstances that occurred as a result of after-arising circumstances not reasonably anticipated at the time of agreement. The chancellor found that without an accurate accounting, Robert had failed to prove that a material change of circumstances had occurred. The chancellor further noted that even if Robert had suffered a loss in income, he had sufficient education and experience to find other employment to increase his income. The chancellor’s decision was neither manifestly wrong nor clearly erroneous.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court