McLeod v. McLeod
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00944-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00944-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-19-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART, AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Private school tuition - Property settlement agreement - Medical expenses - Child support Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2010 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: Jaye A. Bradley, Sr. Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT Case Number: 2005-1064-JB |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jessica Michelle (Menard) McLeod |
ELLIOT G. MESTAYER |
|
|
| Appellee: | Anthony Scott McLeod | MARK V. KNIGHTEN | ||
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 - Private school tuition - Property settlement agreement - Medical expenses - Child support |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2005, Jessica and Anthony McLeod were granted a divorced based on irreconcilable differences. Their judgment of divorce included an executed child custody, child support, and property-settlement agreement, which gave Jessica sole legal and physical custody of their minor daughter. Anthony was ordered to pay Jessica $350 per month in child support. Jessica filed a motion for contempt and modification of child support. Anthony was held in contempt for his failure to pay child support, but Jessica’s request for an increase in child support was denied. Jessica filed a second motion for contempt and modification, alleging that Anthony was in contempt for harassing the child’s medical providers; for failing to provide complete tax returns; and for failing to pay his share of the child’s medical expenses, educational expenses, and extracurricular activities. Jessica requested, under M.R.C.P. 60(b), that the chancellor set aside the earlier order to the extent that it denied an increase in child support because Anthony underestimated his monthly income. Anthony had testified that he made $11.66 per hour when his actual pay rate was $15.57 per hour. The chancellor found that the term “tuition” as it was used in the parties’ agreement was ambiguous and that it referred to college tuition not private-school tuition. The chancellor held Anthony in contempt on only one issue – his failure to pay a $25 medical bill. Jessica’s request to increase the amount of child support was denied. Jessica appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Private school tuition Jessica’s motion for contempt alleged that, under the property settlement agreement, Anthony owed Jessica one-half of their daughter’s private-school tuition. Anthony responded that he intended the word “tuition” to refer only to college tuition. He testified that he could not afford to pay private-school tuition. He further stated that the parties had never contemplated that their daughter would attend private school. Private-school tuition is an ordinary expense included in the statutory amount of child support. However, once a settlement agreement is approved by the chancellor and incorporated into the divorce decree, it becomes part of the decree for all legal intents and purposes. Jessica argues that the chancellor applied an incorrect legal standard by considering parol evidence to conclude that the term “tuition” used in the property-settlement agreement did not apply to private-school tuition, but it was instead intended to refer to college expenses. In their divorce judgment, Jessica and Anthony agreed to this provision: “C. School and Extracurricular Expenses. Husband and Wife shall each be responsible for one-half (1/2) of all school and extracurricular expenses incurred by the minor child including but not limited to the cost of books, activity fees, lab fees, school uniforms, tuition, and sports equipment. Husband shall pay on August 1 and January 1 of each year, the sum of $150.00 toward[] the cost of new clothes for the minor child.” The chancellor was incorrect to find that the word “tuition” is ambiguous. The word “tuition” immediately follows “school uniforms,” which, as Anthony conceded, would not be an expense incurred in college. Accordingly, Anthony is required to pay for one-half of his daughter’s private-school tuition. Issue 2: Medical expenses Jessica claimed that Anthony owed her for four past due medical bills. By its terms, the agreement requires that Anthony pay half of the uncovered bills received by the wife. Naturally, as the chancellor held, Jessica must wait until the insurance claim has been processed to receive Anthony’s payment so that the parties will know what amount is not covered by insurance. Furthermore, the agreement requires Anthony to maintain medical insurance for the minor child, which he has done. Jessica now attempts to disregard Anthony’s insurance coverage and send the minor child to a therapist not covered under Anthony’s policy. The chancellor did not abuse her discretion in finding that Jessica must first take full advantage of the insurance before Anthony should be required to pay one-half of the expense. Issue 3: Child support Jessica argues that the chancellor improperly denied an increase in the amount of monthly child support because Anthony’s adjusted gross income on his 8.05 financial statement did not include his $598 monthly veterans benefit. Anthony’s veteran benefit is, in fact, included on his 8.05 financial statement. The issue that remains unclear is whether the financial statement reflects Anthony’s current rate of pay from his employer. Thus, this issue is remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
