Edwin Clyde Neelly, IV v. Lisa Leatherman Neelly
213 So. 3d 539
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Edwin and Lisa Neelly divorced in 2005; the decree incorporated a Separation and Property Settlement and Child Support and Custody Agreement allocating certain expenses (one-half of uncovered medical, one-half of automobile expenses, and all reasonable college expenses to Edwin).
- A 2012 contempt order found Edwin in contempt for failing to reimburse Lisa for medical and automobile expenses, ordered payment of $3,500 then, required proof of life insurance, and required Edwin to provide a fuel card; bills were to be sent to Edwin through his attorney to minimize direct contact.
- Lisa filed a second contempt motion in 2013 asserting over $17,000 in additional arrearages; Edwin counter-petitioned seeking modification to allow him to claim some children as tax dependents.
- At the hearing, Lisa produced receipts totaling $19,577.67 (half equals $9,788.84); college-related items included a $953.08 computer and $6,700 for an off-campus freshman apartment; Edwin disputed some expenses and said tax exemption would help pay arrearage.
- The chancellor found Edwin in contempt, set an installment schedule for $14,073.92 in arrears (reducing the apartment charge to one-half), denied Edwin’s request to modify the decree to reallocate tax exemptions, and vacated the requirement that bills be sent through Edwin’s former attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the decree should be modified to allow Edwin to claim tax exemptions for the children | Edwin: awarding tax exemptions to him would help pay arrearage and equity warrants reallocation | Lisa: no material, adverse change in circumstances; exemptions were previously awarded to custodial parent | Denied — no showing of material change in circumstances; Nichols requires equities and contingent payment compliance |
| Whether Edwin was in contempt for failing to reimburse his share of qualified expenses | Edwin: he paid bills forwarded to his attorney and was not involved in decision-making for major expenses | Lisa: submitted receipts showing unpaid amounts; Agreement required split of specified expenses | Affirmed — chancellor found arrearage and held Edwin liable for $14,073.92 (with partial reduction for apartment) |
| Whether expenses requiring reimbursement were unreasonable because of lack of mutual decision-making | Edwin: joint legal custody implies consultation before major expenditures; some expenses (vehicle, laptop, off-campus rent) were unilateral and unreasonable | Lisa: Agreement did not require prior consultation for these categories; expenses were within scope and supported by receipts | Rejected — Agreement did not mandate consultation; chancellor evaluated reasonableness and reduced some charges accordingly |
| Whether the contempt order could require Edwin to provide a prepaid fuel card or credit card for fuel purchases | Edwin: requiring an upfront fuel card exceeds the Agreement which only required one-half of automobile expenses | Lisa: fuel falls within “automobile expenses” and the court may specify means of compliance | Affirmed — fuel is an automobile expense; court properly required designated payment method |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Tedder, 547 So. 2d 766 (Miss. 1989) (chancellor may allocate tax dependency exemptions to noncustodial parent when equities require; waiver contingent on payment of due child-support obligations)
- Louk v. Louk, 761 So. 2d 878 (Miss. 2000) (enumerates factors chancellors may consider when allocating tax exemptions between parents)
- Peters v. Ridgely, 797 So. 2d 1020 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (modification to transfer tax deductions requires a material and adverse change in circumstances)
- Laird v. Blackburn, 788 So. 2d 844 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (upheld refusal to require reimbursement where decree required consultation before certain expenditures; considered duplicative expenses and communication failures)