Amy Clemons Plummer v. James Jeffrey Plummer
235 So. 3d 195
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- James and Amy Plummer divorced in 2005; decree ordered James to pay $850/month child support (above guidelines for a special-needs child) and $100/month alimony, among other obligations.
- The parties had three children; one child (Jamie) is profoundly disabled and required extensive, ongoing care.
- In Sept. 2014 Amy petitioned for contempt and increased child support; James counterclaimed seeking termination/reduction of child support and termination of alimony and sought custody/emancipation relief.
- At a January 2016 trial the chancery court found Jeffrey emancipated, terminated James’s $100/month alimony award based on Amy’s substantial increased income, and modified child support from $850 for three children to $800 for two children.
- The chancery court averaged James’s base and high-income years to compute AGI, set a baseline $700 support, added $100 for Jamie’s special needs and lack of visitation ($800), and reduced the next month’s payment to $700 when James exercised a full weekend visitation.
- Amy’s motion to reconsider was denied; she appealed, arguing the alimony termination and child-support calculation/deviation were erroneous. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination of $100/month alimony was justified by a material change in circumstances | Clemons: No material change; alimony should continue | Plummer: Amy’s income substantially increased, justifying termination | Court: Affirmed termination — substantial rise in Amy’s income warranted ending alimony |
| Whether Armstrong factors were properly applied in terminating alimony | Clemons: Even if change occurred, Armstrong factors show termination unwarranted | Plummer: Chancellor considered relative positions and relevant factors | Court: Chancellor considered Armstrong factors (even if not labeled) and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether child-support AGI calculation was erroneous (use of averaged income vs. high years only) | Clemons: Chancellor should have used James’s high disaster-relief earnings to set AGI | Plummer: Averaging base and high income is reasonable given variability | Court: Use of averaged AGI was within chancellor’s discretion; calculation affirmed |
| Whether reducing support contingent on visitation was improper deviation | Clemons: Conditional $100 reduction for visitation improperly reduces support | Plummer: Deviation justified by statutory factors (special needs, lack of visitation) | Court: Deviation and conditional reduction permissible with findings; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2008) (appellate standard: chancellor’s factual findings will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion)
- Magee v. Magee, 754 So. 2d 1275 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (modification requires material and substantial change in circumstances)
- Hubbard v. Hubbard, 656 So. 2d 124 (Miss. 1995) (periodic alimony may be terminated upon material change)
- James v. James, 724 So. 2d 1098 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (Armstrong factors apply to modification of periodic alimony)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (enumeration of factors for alimony determinations)
- Leiden v. Leiden, 902 So. 2d 582 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (chancellor afforded broad discretion in child-support modification)
- McEwen v. McEwen, 631 So. 2d 821 (Miss. 1994) (standard for reversing child-support modifications)
- McNair v. Clark, 961 So. 2d 73 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (modification of child support requires material change in circumstances)
- Shipley v. Ferguson, 638 So. 2d 1295 (Miss. 1994) (material change may be in father, mother, or children)
- Gray v. Gray, 909 So. 2d 108 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (noncustodial parent who exercises little visitation may be ordered to pay above guideline support)