327 So.3d 1085
Miss. Ct. App.2021Background
- Andreekous (Air Force) and Charlise had one child; family lived in Japan while Andreekous was stationed there; they separated and Charlise returned to the U.S. with the child.
- Parties submitted a property settlement agreement; court reserved child support and transportation-cost issues for chancery court decision.
- Chancellor calculated Andreekous’ adjusted gross income by including military entitlements (BAS, BAH, COLA, clothing), arriving at $6,396.32/month, and set child support at 14% of adjusted gross income ($895.48/month).
- Chancellor ordered Andreekous responsible for all transportation costs for visitation when one parent lives outside the U.S.; he also ordered retroactive support adjustments.
- Andreekous moved for reconsideration, testified his take‑home was ~$3,500 and that future income could change after military separation; he appealed the inclusion of military benefits and the transportation-cost allocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether military entitlements (BAS, BAH, COLA, clothing) should be included in adjusted gross income for child support | Jefferson: these nontaxable/military benefits should not be imputed as earned income; court relied on future/contingent income | Charlise: entitlements replace personal expenditures and constitute earned income; precedents permit inclusion | Court affirmed inclusion — military entitlements treated as earned income for support calculation |
| Whether child support should be reduced to account for visitation-related travel costs to/from Japan | Jefferson: travel to exercise visitation is costly and court should offset support to reflect that burden | Charlise: chancery has discretion; evidence showed she could not bear travel costs and Jefferson could pay; PSA and precedent support ordering travel costs to noncustodial parent living abroad | Court affirmed — assigning transportation costs to noncustodial parent was within chancery discretion and not manifestly erroneous |
| Whether the court abused discretion by setting support now rather than waiting for post‑military income changes | Jefferson: future income will likely decrease after discharge, so court should delay | Charlise: court may set support based on current available information; modification remains available later | Court affirmed — chancellor not required to predict future income; modification avenue remains open |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Snowden, 187 So. 3d 159 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (BAH and BAS are forms of earned income for child‑support calculations)
- Bustin v. Bustin, 806 So. 2d 1136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (employer‑provided housing allowance may be included in gross income)
- Pittman v. Pittman, 791 So. 2d 857 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (non‑salary employment benefits that replace personal expenditures count as income)
- Michael v. Smith, 237 So. 3d 183 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (transportation and visitation costs lie within chancellor’s discretion)
- Branch v. Branch, 174 So. 3d 932 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (no general rule requiring custodial parent to assist in logistics of visitation)
- Hulse v. Hulse, 724 So. 2d 918 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (orders compelling custodial cooperation are fact‑specific where visitation is substantially impaired)
- Harden v. Scarborough, 240 So. 3d 1246 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (chancellor not required to predict future adjusted gross income based on speculative estimates)
- Best v. Oliver, 296 So. 3d 140 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (standard: child‑support awards reviewed for manifest error or abuse of discretion)