Curry v. Frazier
2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 426
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Keith and Sharlene Frazier had one child born June 3, 1999, while not married.
- A 2000 stipulated agreement established paternity, child support ($154.79/month), and visitation; chancery court entered an order in May 2000.
- In 2011 Keith sought a name change; Sharlene sought a revaluation of the 12-year-old child-support order.
- January 6, 2012, hearing occurred on the name-change matter; record of the hearing is unclear; no Rule 81 summons for modification was issued.
- February 24, 2012, the court modified child support to $350/month; order cites January 27, 2012 order and references Keith’s financial information, but the record lacks admitted financials or a clear modification hearing transcript.
- The appellate court reversed the modification order for lack of proper process and evidentiary record, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the chancery court have personal jurisdiction to modify? | Curry: no Rule 81 summons; lacked jurisdiction. | Frazier: modification arising from counterclaim; jurisdiction via Rule 4/81 and appearance do not validate defect. | Reversed for lack of proper process; no jurisdiction to modify. |
| Was modification proper where neither party requested it? | Curry: no request for modification; error. | Frazier: counterclaim sought modification; implied consent via appearance. | Remanded; issue discussed but reversal stands due to process/evidence problems. |
| Was the modification supported by substantial evidence? | Curry: no financial record or hearing evidence presented to support modification. | Frazier: evidence showed need for adjustment; guidelines and factors support deviation. | Reversed because record lacks financial information and how the court applied factors; remand for proper proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Powell, 644 So.2d 269 (Miss. 1994) (Rule 81 summons required for modification; standards discussed)
- Caples v. Caples, 686 So.2d 1071 (Miss. 1996) (summons deficiencies and jurisdiction considerations)
- Moulds v. Bradley, 791 So.2d 220 (Miss. 2001) (standard for review of domestic-relations findings)
- Garcia v. Garcia, 97 So.3d 109 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (deviation from guidelines requires on-the-record finding of injustice)
- Edmonds v. Edmonds, 935 So.2d 980 (Miss. 2006) (change in circumstances as basis for modification)
- Chesney v. Chesney, 910 So.2d 1057 (Miss. 2005) (guidelines deviation considerations)
- Isom v. Jernigan, 840 So.2d 104 (Miss. 2003) (waiver of Rule 81 summons through participation in hearing)
- Ivy v. Merchant, 666 So.2d 445 (Miss. 1995) (special considerations for pro se litigants)
- McEachern v. McEachern, 605 So.2d 809 (Miss. 1992) (factors for modification of child support)
- Adams v. Adams, 467 So.2d 211 (Miss. 1985) (relevant financial considerations in support decisions)