Gaiennie v. McMillin, 2014 Miss. LEXIS 243

Divorce decree and property-settlement agreement (May 15, 2007) between Gaiennie and McMillin, with joint legal custody and McMillin having primary physical custody; provision requiring Gaiennie to share daycare/school expenses and a separate college-expense provision; private-school tuition not expressly addressed in the school-expenses clause.
Children were public-school students at divorce; later attended private school after a bullying incident; tuition split between parties began after private-school enrollment in 2010-2011.
Gaiennie moved to modify/clarify the agreement, arguing pre-college private-school tuition was not required; McMillin sought contempt and/or modification for years 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 when Gaiennie allegedly failed to contribute to the college fund.
Chancellor found Gaiennie obligated to pay one-half of private-school tuition, ordered payment to Mississippi Impact Fund, and held Gaiennie in contempt for missing contributions; attorney-fee award against Gaiennie; Gaiennie appealed.
Hearing occurred August 24, 2012; September 27, 2012 final judgment; case appealed October 25, 2012; issues on private-school tuition, contempt, and attorney fees; Supreme Court reverses and remands.
Constitutional and statutory framework applied for contract interpretation and contempt standards; case remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gaiennie must pay one-half the private-school tuition	Gaiennie (Gaiennie) argues no private-school tuition in school expenses; absence of 'tuition' term means not covered	McMillin argues plain meaning includes private-school tuition under school expenses	Gaiennie not obligated to pay
Whether Gaiennie was in contempt for failing to contribute to the college fund	McMillin relied on fund existence and Gaiennie's failure to contribute	Fund did not exist as described; no modification of the agreement; contempt improper	Contempt improper due to fund nonexistence and failure to modify the agreement
Whether attorney-fees were properly awarded against Gaiennie	McMillin entitled to fees due to contempt finding	Fees awarded on basis of erroneous contempt finding	Reversed as to attorney-fee award (offender not in contempt); no error in denying Gaiennie fees

McFarland v. McFarland, 105 So.3d 1111 (Miss. 2013) (contract interpretation; de novo review; four-corners, harmonize, extrinsic evidence)
Harris v. Harris, 988 So.2d 376 (Miss. 2008) (contract interpretation framework)
Ivison v. Ivison, 762 So.2d 329 (Miss. 2000) (clear contract language controls; no ambiguity)
Shaw v. Burchfield, 481 So.2d 247 (Miss. 1985) (interpretation of contract language)
Pursue Energy Corp. v. Perkins, 558 So.2d 349 (Miss. 1990) (canon of harmonizing contract provisions)
Facilities, Inc. v. Rogers-Usry Chevrolet, Inc., 908 So.2d 107 (Miss. 2005) (three-tier contract-interpretation approach)
Cherry v. Anthony, Gibbs, Sage, 501 So.2d 416 (Miss. 1987) (ambiguity determined by language, not parties’ beliefs)
Epperson v. SOUTHBank, 93 So.3d 10 (Miss. 2012) (plain meaning of unambiguous contract terms)
Turner v. Terry, 799 So.2d 25 (Miss. 2001) (parol evidence limitations in contract interpretation)
A & F Props., LLC v. Madison County Bd. of Supervisors, 933 So.2d 296 (Miss. 2006) (intent gleaned from contract wording; no extrinsic evidence if unambiguous)
Ferrara v. Walters, 919 So.2d 876 (Miss. 2005) (contract interpretation and intent)