Caplinger v. Caplinger
108 So. 3d 992
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Roger and Gina divorced in 1994; Gina had custody of Ashley and Christen with Roger paying child support, health insurance, and half of deductibles.
- The parties’ property-settlement agreement contained an escalation clause tying increases to Roger’s pay raises (20% of each raise).
- In 2007-2008 Ashley became emancipated; Christen moved between homes, prompting a custody modification and contempt counterclaim.
- The chancery court found Roger in contempt, calculated arrears by applying the 20% increase to Roger’s AGI, and awarded fees to Gina.
- The court later concluded the support order was a global order and ordered Roger to pay half of the children’s medical bills, which the Court of Appeals found error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the periodic-increase clause bind Roger to increases based on his raises? | Caplinger: clause is clear; increases tied to raises and aligned with guidelines. | Caplinger: ambiguous clause; must be construed against the drafter. | Clause enforceable; increases based on raises and aligned with guidelines. |
| Did Roger’s increased support convert the order from divisible per-child to global? | Caplinger: obligation remains divisible; no automatic global conversion. | Caplinger: increased payment could affect total arrangement; potential global effect. | Order remained divisible; no conversion to global award. |
| Was Roger properly held in contempt for unpaid medical bills? | Contempt supported by failure to follow the 20% increase rule for support. | No express clause obligating payment of uncovered medical bills; error. | Contempt for medical bills was reversed; not compelled by contract language. |
| Were attorney’s fees and interest properly awarded and calculated on remand? | Contempt justifies fees; interest should accrue on past-due amounts. | Fees proper only if contempt; interest not yet set. | Fees affirmed; remand to recalculate arrearage, with interest at a fair rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wing v. Wing, 549 So.2d 944 (Miss. 1989) (escalation clauses require clear specification of cost indices, base, frequency, and effective dates)
- Speed v. Speed, 757 So.2d 221 (Miss. 2000) (enforceability of escalation clauses in periodic alimony)
- Rogers v. Rogers, 919 So.2d 184 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (parties may contract to do more than the law requires; enforceable)
- Stigler v. Stigler, 48 So.3d 547 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (escalation clause enforceability when not strictly Wing factors)
- Varner v. Varner, 588 So.2d 428 (Miss. 1991) (per-child vs global support considerations on emancipation)
- Ligon v. Ligon, 743 So.2d 404 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (emancipation and per-child provisions terminate accordingly)
- Davis v. Davis, 829 So.2d 712 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (order must be reasonably specific to support contempt findings)