Deveaux Carter v. Allen Davis, 235 So. 3d 106

Allen Davis and Deveaux Carter divorced in 1993 by an agreement resolving custody, support, and property; Deveaux received custody of two children (Annie b.1986, Amy b.1991).
The divorce decree required Allen to pay child support, medical insurance/expenses, extracurricular and college costs.
In 1998 the parties entered an agreed order: monthly support set at $400 and a judgment entered for prior arrearages (amended to ~$23,183); payment schedule and interest were set.
In 2013, after the younger child’s emancipation, Deveaux filed for contempt alleging a large cumulative arrearage including college and medical costs; at trial some figures were stipulated (Amy’s college costs $30,000; medical expenses $10,000).
The chancellor computed Allen’s total obligations at $201,187.66, credited him for direct payments by him and payments from his mother (Isabella Mann) and others totaling $197,911, and entered a judgment for an arrearage of $3,276.66; the chancellor also awarded Deveaux $7,500 in attorney’s fees.
On appeal, Deveaux challenged credits given for payments by Mann and post-emancipation payments; Allen cross-appealed the award of attorney’s fees because the chancellor did not find willful contempt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Deveaux)	Defendant's Argument (Allen)	Held
Whether grandparent (Mann) payments can be credited against Allen's child-support arrearage	Mann's payments should not offset Allen; Mizell prohibits crediting a grandparent’s payments	Grandparent paid her own money in lieu of Allen; credits appropriate	Court held credit for Mann’s payments was within chancellor’s discretion and affirmed
Whether Allen’s direct payments to adult/college children can be credited against arrearage	Payments made directly to children (including post-emancipation college payments) should not reduce arrearage	Direct payments were made for children’s support/necessities and to avoid unjust enrichment of Deveaux	Court held chancellor did not abuse discretion in crediting Allen for direct payments
Whether contempt finding was willful and whether attorney’s fees should be awarded	Deveaux sought fees because she was forced to enforce the judgment	Allen argued fees improper because chancellor found no willful contempt	Court reversed fee award: cannot award attorney’s fees where chancellor did not find willful contempt
Whether appellant (Deveaux) is entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal under M.R.A.P. 38	Requests appellate fees; alternatively one-half of trial award	Allen opposed	Court denied appellate fees (Rule 38 applies to frivolous appeals; trial fee award reversed so no appellate fee)

Mizell v. Mizell, 708 So. 2d 55 (Miss. 1998) (grandparent payments not creditable where funds already belonged to child)
Crow v. Crow, 622 So. 2d 1226 (Miss. 1993) (noncustodial parent may receive credit for direct payments to/for benefit of child to avoid unjust enrichment)
Nichols v. Tedder, 547 So. 2d 766 (Miss. 1989) (father must prove by preponderance that direct payments were for necessities contemplated by support order to obtain credit)
McKnight v. Jenkins, 155 So. 3d 730 (Miss. 2013) (contempt requires willful and deliberate violation of court order)
Johnston v. Parham, 758 So. 2d 443 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (Mizell is fact-specific and does not broadly bar credit for grandparent contributions)