Chesney v. Chesney
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01685-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-08-2005 Opinion Author: Graves, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child support Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-15-2004 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Chancery Court Judge: Sarah P. Springer Disposition: The chancellor found that a departure from the statutory guidelines was warranted in the instant case and rendered a judgment which required Mitch to: (1) pay monthly child support of $530; (2) pay one-half of Jennifer’s college expenses until age 21; (3) pay one-half of Aimee’s tuition, books, fees, and extracurricular activities at the Lamar School; (4) pay one-half of the costs associated with any of Aimee’s athletic activities, including lodging, gas, food, etc.; and (5) provide Aimee, upon obtaining her driver’s license, with an automobile comparable to those given to the other daughters and pay for all major repairs and insurance on that vehicle. Case Number: 99-1074-S |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mitchell Lamar Chesney |
CRAIG ANDREW CONWAY, EARL P. JORDAN |
||
| Appellee: | Cynthia Ann Chesney | LAWRENCE PRIMEAUX |
|
|
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 support |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mitchell Chesney and Cynthia Chesney were granted a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The Chesneys were unable to reach a settlement concerning certain financial matters, so the chancellor adjudicated the award of child support, division of marital assets, and alimony. Mitch appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the equitable distribution of marital assets, reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the establishment of a proper level of child support and reversed and rendered on the award of periodic alimony and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision to reverse and remand the case for a determination of an appropriate child support award, supported by an evidentiary record, and its decision to deny periodic alimony; however, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the issue of attorney’s fees and reinstated the chancellor’s award. On remand, the chancellor, in lieu of a hearing, had both parties submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to aid in rendering her decision. The chancellor ultimately found that Mitch had sufficient income to maintain his own standard of living after paying child support and additional court-ordered expenses and that Cindy did not have the capacity to support herself and her daughter and maintain the same standard of living. The chancellor ordered Mitch to pay monthly child support of $530; pay one-half of the couple’s oldest daughter’s college expenses until age 21; pay one-half of the couple’s youngest daughter’s tuition, books, fees, and extracurricular activities and costs associated with any of her athletic activities; and provide the daughter, upon obtaining her driver’s license, with an automobile comparable to those given to the other daughters and pay for all major repairs and insurance on that vehicle. Mitch appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mitch argues that the chancellor’s finding that departure from the statutory guidelines was appropriate is error and that six of her findings were not supported by a sufficient evidentiary record to justify her decision. He argues that a father’s decision to send his daughter to private school was an extraordinary expense not contemplated in the statutory guidelines. A chancellor’s order requiring a father to pay private school tuition has been upheld where the chancellor found he was able to meet the expense financially. The chancellor found that the Chesneys indicated that they wanted their daughters to attend private school, that Mitch stipulated that the daughter should continue in private school, that Cindy was financially unable to continue sending her to private school by herself, and that Mitch had sufficient income to pay for part of the schooling. These findings are sufficient to rebut the presumption that the statutory guideline is the appropriate measure of child support in this situation. Mitch argues that the chancellor’s finding with regard to fact that he was not required to provide health insurance for his daughter is insufficient to justify an increase in child support. However, the chancellor made this finding not as a justification to support a monthly child support award that exceeded statutory guidelines but rather to support her original decision, to require Mitch to maintain health insurance on his minor children because it costs him no out-of-pocket expenses to provide this benefit to his children. Mitch argues that the chancellor erred in finding that the appellate courts’ reversal of Cindy’s alimony award reduced her financial resources, because the reversal of the alimony award is insufficient, standing alone, to justify additional child support. Mitch has cited no authority to suggest that this is not a matter within the chancellor’s discretion, especially since a chancellor should evaluate “the reasonable need of the child,” “the financial resources and reasonable needs of each parent,” and “any other relevant factor shown by the evidence” in fashioning a child support award. The fact that Mitch now has more disposable income than he would if he were paying alimony constitutes “any other relevant factor” for the chancellor’s consideration. Mitch argues that the $83.50 he was required to pay for “grooming, gifts, and cosmetics” was not enough to warrant his payment of additional expenses. The record shows that the chancellor, within her discretion, considered Mitch’s financial resources, looked at the daughter’s normal activities and the expenses her parents incurred on her behalf prior to the divorce, and determined that she should not be deprived of her accustomed way of living in the future solely because of her father’s unwillingness to contribute to those expenses. This finding is sufficient to justify the chancellor’s deviation from the statutory child support guidelines. Mitch argues that the chancellor is biased against him, because the chancellor’s finding mentioned that Mitch is now dating another woman, has reduced the amount of time spent with his daughters, and failed to help with the cost of his oldest daughter’s wedding, an indication of his unwillingness to spend extra time and money on his other minor children. The record does reflect that Mitch does not spend as much time with his daughters as he did previously, for whatever reason, and that he did not help in paying for his daughter’s wedding, and the chancellor is entitled to consider these facts. Mitch argues that even if the chancellor made findings of fact that were sufficient to support a deviation from the statutory guidelines, the chancellor’s ultimate child support award was excessive under the circumstances and the original monthly support award should now be reduced since there is now only one minor child. Were the chancellor solely limited to an analysis of Mitch’s income at the time of the original trial, then his argument that $371 per month is now an appropriate measure of child support may have some merit. However, the chancellor is not so limited in what she may consider in rendering her decision and may “consider any other relevant fact shown by the evidence.” |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
