Wayne R. Reid v. Susie B. Reid
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00220-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00220-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-02-2008 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of child support - Modification of periodic alimony - Financial statement - UCCR 8.05 - Statutory guidelines - Material change in circumstances Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-24-2007 Appealed from: Pike County Chancery Court Judge: Debra K. Halford Disposition: ORDER ON COMPLAINT FOR MODIFICATION ENTERED Case Number: 2000-365 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Wayne R. Reid |
Thomas T. Buchanan; Jessica D. Carr |
|
|
| Appellee: | Susie B. Reid | Ronald L. Whittington | ||
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 - Modification of periodic alimony - Financial statement - UCCR 8.05 - Statutory guidelines - Material change in circumstances |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Wayne Reid and Susie Reid were granted a divorce, Wayne and Susie were ordered to share joint custody of their minor children with Susie having primary physical custody. The chancellor awarded Susie permanent periodic alimony in the amount of $1,000 per month and rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $550 per month for thirty-six months. The court also ordered Wayne to pay $1,560 in child support to Susie. Wayne later filed for a modification, seeking termination of periodic and rehabilitative alimony. The court found that Susie should still receive all existing alimony from Wayne. Susie later filed a complaint for modification of child support and other relief, and Wayne filed an amended counter-complaint for modification and complaint for citation for contempt. Wayne was ordered to pay $1,280 per month in child support – an amount equal to 22% of his gross monthly income, less the 14% of Susie’s gross adjusted income he was to receive from Susie as child support for their son who was living with Wayne. The chancellor denied Wayne’s request for the modification of Susie’s periodic alimony. The chancellor found that Susie was in contempt for her failure to facilitate visitation between Wayne and the children. Payment of attorneys’ fees was not awarded to either party. Wayne appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Financial statement Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 requires parties in all domestic cases involving economic issues to submit a financial statement detailing income, expenses (both those relating to the party and those relating to the parties’ children), assets, and liabilities. Wayne and Susie each submitted updated 8.05 financial statements in preparation for the modification hearing. Wayne argues that Susie’s 8.05 financial statement did not adequately break down her expenses between herself and her children and was in noncompliance with Rule 8.05. However, according to the transcripts from the modification hearing, Susie’s counsel submitted the financial statement without any type of objection from Wayne’s counsel. If one spouse believes the other’s Rule 8.05 statement to be incorrect, the complaining spouse should address this issue during cross-examination. The record indicates that Susie’s disclosure statement correctly reflected her monthly income, had her expenses listed – albeit not broken down into a per person ration – and had her check stubs attached. She attached her 2002 W-2 and her 2001 and 2002 tax return paperwork. Wayne admitted on the stand that he thought Susie’s expenses were reasonable. At no point was any objection made to the disclosure statement itself. Therefore, it was not manifest error for the chancellor to rely on Susie’s financial disclosure. Issue 2: Statutory guidelines Wayne argues that the chancellor failed to make specific findings of fact on the record as statutorily required to support the chancellor’s determination that application of the child support guidelines was reasonable though his income was over $50,000. However, even a succinct written explanation of whether or not the guidelines are reasonable can be sufficient. The chancellor in this case stated in her findings of fact that “the application of the statutory guidelines to the Adjusted Gross Income of each of the parties is reasonable in this case.” The chancellor also detailed both parties’ incomes, the number of children living in each party’s home, the amount that would equal in child support, and noted that both parents would pay their portion of child support to the other according to the statutory guidelines. The chancellor’s statement was a sufficient written finding. In addition, there was credible evidence within the trial record to support the chancellor’s finding that the awards of child support within the guidelines were reasonable. Issue 3: Material change in circumstances Child support can be modified if there has been a substantial or material change in the circumstances of one or more of the interested parties. Wayne argues that because the parties stipulated to a material change and that the chancellor found there was a decrease in the children’s needs, the chancellor should have found that a material change in circumstances existed and reduced the amount of child support he was to pay. The parties agreed there had been a material change in circumstances regarding the custody arrangement for the couple’s son, and custody was awarded to Wayne. Wayne’s child support obligation was then reduced to reflect the change in custody. Evidence was not presented at trial nor was the issue even raised that there should be a further reduction in child support beyond the amount corresponding to the son. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 4: Alimony The correct standard for determining if a modification of periodic alimony is appropriate is whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the date of the award. Here, there was sufficient, credible evidence to support the chancellor’s decision that no material change in circumstances existed. Evidence was presented at trial that the income and expenses of both parties had remained relatively unchanged with the exception of custody of the couple’s son, but this was dealt with through the adjustment of child support. Susie was still only earning nominal amounts of money every month outside her alimony and child support payments. Wayne’s income had remained basically unchanged. Neither party’s expenses had drastically reduced or increased. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
