Finch v. Finch
2014 Miss. LEXIS 33
Miss.2014Background
- Rosemary and Stewart Finch divorced; chancery proceedings required Rule 8.05 financial disclosures listing incomes, assets, liabilities.
- Chancellor originally awarded Rosemary tiered periodic alimony and ordered Stewart to pay attorney fees.
- Post-judgment, Rosemary filed contempt for nonpayment; Stewart counterclaimed, later amended to allege Rosemary hid debts (credit cards, bank accounts) on her 8.05 statement and sought reduction of alimony and emancipation of the son.
- A hearing before a second chancellor introduced creditor statements and a credit report showing additional debts; a third chancellor later reviewed the record, found Rosemary committed fraud upon the court under Rule 60(b) (citing Trim), and retroactively reduced alimony and child support and relieved Stewart of college-expense obligations.
- Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed in part (fraud finding), but reversed in part and remanded for further factual findings about Stewart’s income and recalculation of alimony and child support (including that downward child-support reductions cannot be retroactive to dates before the modification judgment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rosemary) | Defendant's Argument (Stewart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice that fraud would be considered sua sponte | She lacked notice and opportunity to defend against a fraud-on-the-court finding | Allegations and exhibits about undisclosed debts were presented at the August hearing and in later filings; she had opportunity to argue | Court: no abuse of discretion; record (August hearing, filings, oral argument) gave adequate notice and opportunity to litigate fraud |
| Standard of proof for fraud-on-the-court | Chancellor failed to state/apply clear-and-convincing standard; mere inaccurate 8.05 statements don't always equal fraud | Trim controls: intentional, substantial falsity in 8.05 can be fraud; chancellor applied clear-and-convincing standard in substance | Court: clear-and-convincing standard was applied; ample evidence supported fraud finding under Trim |
| Deference to findings of third chancellor who didn’t hear live witnesses | Findings are unreliable because the deciding chancellor didn’t see witnesses testify | The third chancellor read transcripts and the record before ruling; credibility determinations are within chancery discretion | Court: did not need to decide issue III; declined to disturb factual findings except where specific errors required remand |
| Sufficiency of factual findings; effect on support and alimony | Finding of fraud and retroactive reductions deprived Rosemary of a fair trial; income and support calculations were incorrect | Fraud justified modification; finances and new debts materially changed circumstances warranting modification | Court: affirmed fraud finding, but reversed and remanded to recalculate alimony and child support because Stewart’s income needed further factual determination and child-support cannot be downwardly retroactive prior to the modification judgment; interest accrues on unpaid child support |
Key Cases Cited
- Trim v. Trim, 33 So.3d 471 (Miss. 2010) (intentional materially false Rule 8.05 disclosure can constitute fraud upon the court)
- Biglane v. Under the Hill Corp., 949 So.2d 9 (Miss. 2007) (standard for appellate review of chancery factual findings)
- Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b) motion requirement can be satisfied by court on its own motion but parties must get notice and opportunity to be heard)
- A.M.L. v. J.W.L., 98 So.3d 1001 (Miss. 2012) (chancellor’s discretion in child-support modification; rule against downward retroactive modification)
- Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So.2d 839 (Miss. 1990) (retroactive modification rules for child support)