238 So. 3d 1191
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Tracy and Michelle divorced in 2012; decree required Tracy to pay $770/month child support (plus expenses) and $2,000/month permanent periodic alimony; Michelle had physical custody of twins Ashton and Amanda.
- In 2014 Tracy moved to modify support and alimony, arguing Amanda was emancipated by cohabiting with her boyfriend and that changed circumstances warranted modification.
- Amanda remained a full-time college student, received some support from her mother, and testified she still relied on Michelle; Amanda later transferred to University of Southern Mississippi.
- Tracy lost his high-paying oil-industry job in August 2015, took lower-paid work as a carpenter, stopped/almost stopped alimony and fell behind on child support; he also cashed out a 401(k) and spent those proceeds on various personal debts and purchases.
- The chancery court found Amanda not emancipated, held Tracy in contempt for arrearages, required specific arrearage payments to purge contempt, and denied modification of child support and alimony. Tracy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tracy) | Defendant's Argument (Michelle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amanda is emancipated by cohabitation | Amanda's cohabitation required emancipation under statute, ending child-support obligation | Amanda is a full-time student who still depends on Michelle; cohabitation is discretionary ground for emancipation | Court: discretionary provision; chancellor did not abuse discretion in finding Amanda not emancipated |
| Whether child support should be reduced for Amanda/Ashton | Tracy's job loss and reduced income justify reducing/terminating child support | Tracy remained able to pay or chose not to use available funds; arrearages and willful conduct bar relief | Court: modification denied—chancellor reasonably found no unanticipated, permanent reduction in earning capacity and that Tracy had not proven entitlement to modification |
| Whether alimony should be terminated or reduced | Tracy's layoff and decreased income warrant termination or reduction of $2,000/month alimony | Michelle can support herself; Tracy misused assets and failed to prove inability to pay; contempt taints request | Court: modification denied—chancellor's findings supported by evidence; contempt addressed but judgment entry cleansed hands and merits reviewed; still no material, unanticipated change shown |
| Whether chancellor exceeded authority by issuing amended opinion/judgment after post-judgment motion | Tracy: entry of revised opinion/amended judgment violated Rule 59(d) timing and notice requirements | Court: Tracy filed timely Rule 59(e) motion to alter/amend; trial court may reconsider de novo and amend judgment | Court: no excess of authority—timely Rule 59(e) motion tolled finality and permitted amended judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hambrick v. Prestwood, 382 So.2d 474 (Miss. 1980) (addresses emancipation principles in child-support context)
- Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So.2d 806 (Miss. 2003) (standard of review for chancellor’s factual findings)
- McEwen v. McEwen, 631 So.2d 821 (Miss. 1994) (modification requires material, substantial, and unanticipated change)
- Lewis v. Pagel, 172 So.3d 162 (Miss. 2015) (entry of judgment for arrearages can cleanse payor’s hands for modification requests)
- Bruce v. Bruce, 587 So.2d 898 (Miss. 1991) (Rule 59(e) gives trial court authority to correct its own errors and reconsider judgment)
- Varley v. Tampax Inc., 855 F.2d 696 (10th Cir. 1988) (timely Rule 59(e)-type motion allows court to amend judgment for any reason)