Dodson v. Dodson
Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00155-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of child support - Loss of income Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-06-2003 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE MODIFIED Case Number: 01-11-1471(L) |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Tonoa (Malone) Dodson |
ERIKA DANITA SUTTLAR |
||
Appellee: | Marvin D. Dodson | SIDNEY FRANKLIN BECK, 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: | Modification of child support - Loss of income |
Summary of the Facts: | Marvin Dodson filed a petition to modify decree in which he claimed that a material change in circumstances had occurred that had affected his income. Tonoa Dodson, his former wife, answered and filed what she denoted as a "counterpetition." She denied Marvin’s assertion that a modification was warranted and requested reasonable attorney’s fees. The court granted Marvin’s request to modify but also granted Tonoa’s request for attorney’s fees. Tonoa appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Tonoa argues that the court erred in modifying the amount of child support that Marvin was required to pay, because his loss of income was voluntary. A child support award can be altered if it can be shown that there has been a substantial or material change in the circumstance of one or more of the interested parties arising subsequent to the entry of the decree to be modified. The evidence shows that Marvin maintained both his job with Cargill Incorporated and his car washing business during the latter part of his marriage and after his divorce for a period of time. Marvin's car washing business involved contracts with several post offices. After the divorce, the post offices required him to purchase a water retrieval system to maintain his contracts with them. Because Marvin did not purchase the equipment, the post officers terminated his contracts. There is no evidence that Marvin conspired with the post offices to impose the requirement that the water retrieval equipment be purchased as a condition of continued employment, and, as the chancellor found, there is no evidence that Marvin knew, at the time of the divorce, that the postal service would disallow his services. Therefore, the chancellor did not err when he did not consider Marvin's earning capacity outside of his employment at the time of the modification proceeding. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court