Arthur Dewayne Black v. Alicia Powell Black
240 So. 3d 1226
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Arthur and Alicia Black married in 2003 and signed a prenuptial agreement three days before marriage allocating 70% of marital property to Arthur and 30% to Alicia and waiving various spousal rights; Alicia left her engineering career to help build Arthur’s medical practice and served as office manager.
- Parties separated May 2013; divorce trial occurred December 2014 after Alicia (initially pro se) challenged the prenup as unconscionable and invalid; the chancery court found full disclosure and competent counsel and upheld the agreement.
- The chancery court awarded Alicia physical custody, ordered Arthur to pay child support ($6,500/month) and $36,000/year toward private-school tuition, divided the marital estate per the prenup (Alicia received ~$668,183.52), and awarded Alicia $40,000 in attorney’s fees.
- Both parties filed Rule 59 motions; at the posttrial hearing the parties agreed to modify visitation terms and re-opened evidence on 2013 tax refunds; the chancellor issued a December 2015 posttrial order.
- On appeal Arthur challenged denial of his sanctions/attorney-fees request, the chancery court’s allocation of certain assets/debts (including a $159,700 line of credit and 2013 tax refunds), the award of attorney’s fees to Alicia, the child-support/tuition deviation, and failure to memorialize revised visitation terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arthur) | Defendant's Argument (Alicia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should award Arthur sanctions/attorney’s fees for frivolous challenges to prenup | Alicia’s attacks were frivolous and counsel acted recklessly; seek fees under Rule 11/Litigation Accountability Act | Attack had some factual basis (missing original signatures); not frivolous | Denied; appellate court affirmed—chancellor did not abuse discretion given some chance of success due to missing original agreement |
| Whether chancellor properly included/divided a $159,700 line of credit under the prenup | Debt was marital and should have been divided per prenup (70/30) | Prenup didn’t expressly address debts; chancellor had equitable discretion; debt refinanced premarital home | Reversed and remanded — omission was error; debt must be included and divided per prenup |
| Whether 2013 federal/state tax refunds were correctly allocated per prenup | Arthur: tax refunds contain marital portion; court should make specific findings and calculations to apply 70/30 split | Alicia: court intended to divide per prenup; details addressed at posttrial hearing | Remanded for specific findings and calculations allocating the marital portion consistent with prenup |
| Whether award of $40,000 attorney’s fees to Alicia was barred by the prenup waiver | Prenup waived rights to support/maintenance; fees based on inability to pay are tantamount to support and thus barred | Fees are equitable relief not expressly waived; issues (child support, discovery disputes) not covered by prenup; Alicia unable to pay without liquidating retirement | Affirmed — chancellor did not abuse discretion in awarding fees; majority rejects broad implied waiver of attorney’s fees in prenup (but concurrence disagrees) |
| Whether child-support and tuition awards deviated properly from statutory guidelines | Deviation to $6,500/month plus $36,000/year tuition is excessive; court failed to account for Alicia’s earning capacity | Children have extraordinary private-school/extracurricular expenses; parties agreed to preserve lifestyle; Arthur’s income far exceeds Alicia’s | Affirmed — chancellor made required findings and substantial evidence supports deviation and tuition order |
| Whether agreed visitation modifications should be memorialized | Visits agreed at Rule 59 hearing materially changed dates/odd-even allocations and should be incorporated into the order | Agreement was made on the record | Remanded — visitation revisions must be formally memorialized in the chancery order to avoid future conflicts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (standard of appellate review in domestic-relations matters)
- Haney v. Haney, 907 So.2d 948 (Miss. 2005) (attorney’s-fee awards as equitable relief justified when equities require assistance)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (factors to consider when awarding attorney’s fees)
- McLeod v. McLeod, 145 So.3d 1246 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (prenups must be fair in execution; follow parties’ intent)
- Russell v. Beachwalk Condominiums Ass’n Inc., 193 So.3d 657 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (definition of "without substantial justification" for Litigation Accountability Act/Rule 11)
- Pannagl v. Lambert (In re Estate of Pannagl), 166 So.3d 39 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions decisions)
- Owen v. Owen, 928 So.2d 156 (Miss. 2006) (property division review standard)
- Buckalew v. Buccluch (In re Guardianship of Buckalew), 62 So.3d 460 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate deference when substantial evidence supports chancellor’s findings)