Knighten v. Hooper


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-00377-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-06-2011
Opinion Author: Presiding Judge Griffis
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Child custody - Child support - Section 43-19-101(1) - Tax deduction - M.R.C.P. 8 - M.R.C.P. 15
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-12-2010
Appealed from: Washington County Chancery Court
Judge: Vicki Barnes
Disposition: AWARDED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF CHILD TO MOTHER, AWARDED VISITATION RIGHTS TO FATHER, AND ORDERED FATHER TO PAY $400 PER MONTH IN CHILD SUPPORT
Case Number: 0800800

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Cordell K. Knighten, Sr.




DERWIN B. GOVAN



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Supplemental Brief

  • Appellee: Shimberely Hooper PHILIP MANSOUR JR.  

    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: Child custody - Child support - Section 43-19-101(1) - Tax deduction - M.R.C.P. 8 - M.R.C.P. 15

    Summary of the Facts: Cordell Knighten Sr. and Shimberely Hooper were never married and, except for a brief three-month period, never resided together in the same home. Their son was born in 1999. In July 2008, Knighten filed a petition for custody of his son. Hooper counterclaimed for custody and child support. The chancellor awarded sole physical custody to Hooper and ordered Knighten to pay $400 per month in child support. Knighten appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Child support The chancellor decided, in writing, that a downward deviation from the child-support guidelines was appropriate in light of Knighten’s obligations to his three other children. If the chancellor had strictly applied the guidelines, Knighten would have been ordered to pay $526.12 per month. Instead, the chancellor ordered him to pay $400 per month. Knighten argues that the chancellor erred when she did not explain, in writing, how she arrived at the precise amount of $400. The statutory guidelines presumptively apply if the payor’s annual adjusted gross income is greater than or equal to $5,000 but less than or equal to $50,000. Section 43-19-101(1) provide that for one child the payor should be required to pay 14% of his adjusted gross income. Here, the chancellor determined that 14% of Knighten’s monthly adjusted gross income was $526.12. P Presumptively, that was the amount he was required to pay. The chancellor decided that it was equitable to consider Knighten’s other children. The chancellor determined, in writing, that a deviation from the guidelines was appropriate based on a reasonable and necessary existing expense – namely, Knighten’s obligation to support his other children. Knighten correctly argues that the chancellor did not explain in detail how she settled on the precise amount of $400. However, he cites no authority that supports his proposition that such a detailed explanation was required. The chancellor’s decision was within her discretion. Issue 2: Tax deduction Instead of closing arguments, the chancellor requested that each party submit written proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. In his written submission, Knighten raised, for the first time, the issue of whether or not he should be allowed to claim the child as a dependent for income-tax purposes. The chancellor did not address the issue in her judgment, and on appeal, Knighten argues that the omission was error. Knighten did not properly raise this issue through his pleadings or the evidence presented at trial as required by M.R.C.P. 8, 15. As a result, Hooper was not given notice and an opportunity to respond, and there was no error by the chancellor.


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