David W. Martin v. Wendy E. Borries, 282 So.3d 472

David Martin and Wendy Borries divorced in 2007; Borries received physical custody of two children and Martin was ordered to pay child support and share extracurricular and medical costs.
After post-divorce enforcement and modification proceedings, the parties entered an agreed modification in 2014 requiring Martin to pay $1,700/month child support plus $300/month for extracurriculars (20% of salary capped at $100,000).
Martin’s high‑paying overseas contract ended in 2015; he relocated his new family to Mississippi and later took a lower‑paying job as an electrician, earning roughly $4,200/month.
Martin petitioned in 2016 to modify child support based on reduced income; Borries sought contribution to the eldest child’s college expenses and moved for contempt for arrearages and lack of insurance.
The chancery court found Martin’s income reduction was voluntary and denied modification, ordered Martin to pay half of the eldest child’s college expenses, reduced monthly support to $1,400 while the child is at college, and found Martin in contempt for late support and failure to provide insurance.
Martin appealed denial of modification; Borries attempted a counter‑appeal of the college‑period reduction and sought appellate attorney’s fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Martin)	Defendant's Argument (Borries)	Held
Whether child support should be modified for decreased income	Martin claimed a substantial, material, unforeseeable change in circumstances not his fault warranting reduction	Borries argued Martin’s income decrease was voluntary and anticipated; no modification warranted	Court affirmed denial: reduction was voluntary and anticipated; no material change shown
Whether Martin must share eldest child’s college expenses	Martin did not prevail below and argued he should not be required	Borries requested contribution to college costs	Chancery court ordered Martin to pay half of eldest child’s college expenses; appellate brief did not reverse this ruling
Whether support should be reduced while child is at college	Martin sought modification generally; Borries cross‑appealed the interim reduction	Borries argued the court erred in reducing support during college months	Borries did not file a proper notice of appeal on that point; issue not before the Court
Whether Borries is entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal	Martin argued fees unwarranted because Borries didn’t show inability to pay and contempt was not appealed	Borries sought appellate fees (either $5,000 or half of trial award)	Court denied appellate attorney’s fees because fees below were tied to contempt, and Martin did not appeal the contempt finding

Evans v. Evans, 994 So. 2d 765 (Miss. 2008) (modification requires substantial, material change after the decree)
Gillespie v. Gillespie, 594 So. 2d 620 (Miss. 1992) (no modification absent subsequent material change)
Bailey v. Bailey, 724 So. 2d 335 (Miss. 1998) (voluntary reduction in income does not justify reduced support)
Tingle v. Tingle, 573 So. 2d 1389 (Miss. 1990) (unilateral, anticipated acts leading to income loss do not warrant reduction)
Pullis v. Linzey, 753 So. 2d 480 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (child should not suffer diminished support from parent’s voluntary employment choices)
Leiden v. Leiden, 902 So. 2d 582 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (affirmed denial of modification where father planned early retirement)
Howard v. Howard, 968 So. 2d 961 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review for chancery court in domestic relations matters)
Dailey v. McBeath, 151 So. 3d 1038 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate attorney’s fees tied to contempt may not be awarded if contempt not appealed)
Riley v. Riley, 196 So. 3d 1159 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (attorney’s fees may be awarded against a contemnor without separate finding of inability to pay)