Davison v. Miss. Dep't of Human Services
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00088-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-03-2006 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Child support - Appeal of special master’s report - M.R.C.P. 53(g)(2) - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 803(6) - M.R.E. 902(11) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-04-2005 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Barlow Disposition: DEFENDANT FOUND IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND ORDERED TO SERVE NINETY DAYS IN THE JACKSON COUNTY ADULT DETENTION CENTER OR PURGE HIMSELF OF CONTEMPT BY PAYING ARREARAGE. Case Number: 2000-1747GB |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Carlos Davison a/k/a Carlos D. Davison |
GEORGE S. SHADDOCK |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Human Services | JAMES C. SMALLWOOD |
|
|
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: | Contempt - Child support - Appeal of special master’s report - M.R.C.P. 53(g)(2) - Sufficiency of evidence - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(c) - M.R.E. 803(6) - M.R.E. 902(11) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carlos Davison was ordered by the Jackson County Chancery Court to pay child support for four of his children. After Davison failed to pay child support, the special master assigned to Davison’s cases found him in contempt. Davison objected to the special master’s report by appealing to the chancery court. The chancery court adopted the special master’s report, and ordered Davison to serve ninety days in jail or purge himself of contempt by paying the arrearage. Davison appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Appeal DHS argues that the appeal before the chancellor was improper because Davison failed to serve a written objection to the report within ten days as required by M.R.C.P. 53(g)(2), and instead filed a notice of appeal fourteen days after the report was entered. A master’s report has no effect until it is either accepted or rejected by the chancellor. Even if Davison never filed a written objection or notice of appeal, the chancellor was still required to determine whether to accept or reject the master’s report. Rule 53(g)(2) also makes clear that the chancellor had the authority to receive further evidence at the hearing, which he did. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Davison argues that the chancellor’s findings were not supported by substantial credible evidence. Davison argued that he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay child support because he is disabled and unemployable. Davison was required to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to pay the ordered child support due to his alleged disability. Davison’s testimony was the only evidence presented to prove his inability to pay child support. Although Davison claims that he is unemployable, he testified that he spends approximately four days per week at his brother’s pool hall. He also testified that he was not employed at the pool hall. Although the record does not establish how Davison pays for his basic expenses, he did testify that he lives in a house owned by his brother who owns the pool hall. Finally, Davison also testified that he applied for and was denied Social Security disability benefits, and that at the time of the hearing that denial was on appeal. Clearly, the chancellor found that Davison did not meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence his alleged inability to pay the ordered child support. Davison also argues that the chancellor erred in ruling that three documents he sought to introduce into evidence were hearsay. Two letters clearly meet the definition of hearsay under M.R.E. 801(c), and the chancellor did not err in refusing to admit them into evidence. The documentation of Davison’s visit to his may have fallen under M.R.E. 803(6), records of regularly conducted activity, but Davison did not have the record custodian nor any other qualified witness present to authenticate the document. Nor did the document meet the self-authenticating qualities contained in M.R.E. 902(11). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
