164 So. 3d 474
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- James and Melanie Hanlin divorced in 2007; their property-settlement agreement (PSA) required James to “maintain in full force and effect the insurance benefits that are allowable by statute to the divorced spouse of a retired military person.”
- Melanie believed this meant she would be covered by Tricare for one year after the divorce.
- In 2008 Tricare initially paid for Melanie’s surgery but later stopped payments and sought reimbursement; Melanie only discovered the lapse in 2009 and was later sued by the hospital’s collection agent for unpaid bills.
- In 2012 James moved to enforce PSA terms; Melanie counter-petitioned for contempt alleging James failed to maintain health insurance, failed to pay a Discover balance, and failed to pay a prior judgment award.
- The chancery court (nunc pro tunc to Sept. 27, 2012) found James was required under the PSA to maintain Melanie’s health insurance for one year, ordered the parties to settle with the hospital and share responsibility for that settlement, and ordered James to pay other outstanding obligations.
- James appealed, arguing (1) the PSA’s plain text should be enforced differently, (2) the chancery court lacked jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc that altered the PSA, and (3) Melanie’s claims were time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PSA obligated James to maintain Melanie’s Tricare coverage | Melanie: PSA incorporates statutory entitlement; she was entitled to one year of coverage under federal law | James: PSA should be enforced as written and does not obligate coverage for one year as interpreted | Court: PSA unambiguous when read with statute; Melanie entitled to at least one year of coverage |
| Whether chancery court erred by using a nunc pro tunc to alter PSA | Melanie: Nunc pro tunc simply reflected and enforced statutory-based PSA obligation | James: Nunc pro tunc cannot rewrite a contract; court lacked jurisdiction to change PSA terms | Court: No reshaping occurred; chancellor applied plain PSA language; nunc pro tunc proper |
| Whether Melanie’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations | Melanie: (implicit) enforcement/civil contempt timely raised in counter-petition | James: Claim is barred because Melanie waited more than three years to bring action | Court: James failed to raise statute of limitations below; issue not preserved on appeal; rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Steiner v. Steiner, 788 So.2d 771 (Miss. 2001) (chancellors afforded broad discretion in domestic-relations cases)
- Mizell v. Mizell, 708 So.2d 55 (Miss. 1998) (appellate review limited to manifest error or legal error in chancery findings)
- Harris v. Harris, 988 So.2d 376 (Miss. 2008) (property settlement agreements are contracts; contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Epperson v. SOUTHBank, 93 So.3d 10 (Miss. 2012) (ambiguous contract language must be determined by reviewing the contract as a whole)
- Cherokee Ins. Co. v. Babin, 37 So.3d 45 (Miss. 2010) (principles for contract interpretation)
- Luse v. Luse, 992 So.2d 659 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (issues not raised below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)