Strack v. Sticklin, et. Al
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00269-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00269-COA ; 2005-CT-00269-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-29-2006 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Child support - Credit - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-59 - Attorney’s fees 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: 11-10-2004 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Jim Persons Disposition: DEFENDANT WAS FOUND IN CONTEMPT AND JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS Case Number: 96236 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | David Strack |
DAMON SCOTT GIBSON |
||
| Appellee: | Mollie Strack Sticklin, Niki Lynn Strack Lowrey and Mary Christina Strack | CHESTER D. NICHOLSON |
|
|
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 - Credit - Statute of limitations - Section 15-1-59 - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Strack was found in contempt for failure to pay child support and maintain health and life insurance as required by his divorce decree. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Contempt David argues that the chancellor erred in finding him in contempt. David testified that he paid cash to Mollie for which she did not give him a receipt. He also testified that Mollie told him that he could cease payments to her after their two children moved into his trailer. Mollie disputed David’s testimony. The chancellor found the testimony of Mollie to have greater reliability than that of David. A chancellor’s finding on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is manifestly wrong. Even if the chancellor agreed that David and Mollie had executed an agreement for David to cease support payments, David still had a legal obligation to continue with his monthly support. Issue 2: Credit David argues that the chancellor erred in not giving him credit from the $38,750 arrearage for the months that he offered proof that Mollie and the two children lived in his mobile home and he paid the bills. Whether a non-custodial parent should be given credit against his/her child support obligation is a matter left to the sound discretion of the chancellor. The testimony was in conflict, and the chancellor found the testimony of Mollie to have greater reliability. Issue 3: Child support David argues that the court erred in allocating to Mollie any sums for child support. Any sums that the custodial parent recovers must be paid directly to the child, save only sums that the parent may be able to prove that he or she paid to or for the children during the months and years in issue over and above their own support obligations. David also argues that the court erred in allocating an award to his two daughters past what he claims their emancipation dates were. If David desired to be relieved of his obligation to pay child support, due to the alleged emancipation of the children, it was his responsibility to bring the matter to the attention of the chancellor. Where he failed to seek relief from the court, as opposed to engaging in self help, the decision to apply emancipation retroactively is left to the sound discretion of the chancellor. Issue 4: Statute of limitations David argues that the chancellor erred in holding him in contempt because the statute of limitations had run. Under section 15-1-59, the statute of limitations clearly has not run in this case. The youngest child was not twenty-one until May 17, 2001, and she had until May 17, 2008, to bring this action. Issue 5: Attorney’s fees David argues that the court erred in awarding Mollie attorney’s fees. Because David was found to be in contempt, it was not error for the chancellor to award attorney’s fees. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
