171 So. 3d 522
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jack (Jay) Wilson and Joy Stewart divorced in 2003; Joy received sole custody and Jay agreed to pay $1,700/month plus private school, college, half extracurricular/uncovered health costs, and insurance.
- A 2005 agreed modification reduced support to $800/month and required Jay to pay $10,052 in arrearage in two installments; the agreement stated failure to timely pay would void the reduction and constitute contempt.
- Joy filed amended contempt petitions in 2011 and 2012 alleging Jay paid nothing after the 2005 order and had not paid tuition or college expenses; a master was appointed and parties submitted affidavits and stipulated the master’s factual findings would be final.
- The master found Jay never qualified for the reduced support, calculated arrearages based on $1,700 and later adjusted percentages, credited some payments, and found Jay owed $132,255.90 plus interest; the master limited college obligation to pre-emancipation and to Henley only.
- The chancellor adopted most of the master’s calculations, awarded pre-judgment interest, extended the contractual college-support obligation post-majority to age 23 or degree, awarded additional attorney’s fees and interest, held Jay in willful contempt, and entered a final judgment for Joy of $197,802.74.
Issues
| Issue | Wilson's Argument | Stewart's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/effect of 2005 modification and calculation of arrearages | Substantial compliance with 2005 order (paid ~$9,000) and a $58.55 phone bill credit entitled him to the reduced $800 rate | He failed to timely pay the required installments; reduction never took effect so prior $1,700 obligation continued | Chancellor properly adopted master’s finding that reduction never took effect; arrearage calculation affirmed |
| Equitable estoppel to bar contempt action | Joy should be estopped from enforcing prior obligations | Child support cannot be forfeited by custodial parent’s actions; support belongs to minors | Estoppel inapplicable; court affirmed contempt claim can proceed |
| Willful contempt / inability to pay defense | Claimed inability to pay due to debts and limited assets | Joy produced affidavits suggesting Jay had substantial assets and lifestyle; master found no proof of inability | Jay failed to prove inability with particularity; finding of willful contempt affirmed |
| Post-majority college expense obligation | Argues obligation ended at emancipation (age 21) or should terminate for poor grades | Agreement/ decree contractually obligated Jay to pay college costs post-majority | Contractual college-support extended post-majority (until degree or age 23); chancellor’s extension affirmed |
| Award of attorney’s fees and majority of master’s fees | Unable to pay; chancellor erred awarding fees against him | Fees appropriate to make prevailing party whole where contemnor violates judgment | Chancellor acted within discretion; attorney’s and master’s fees award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntosh v. Department of Human Services, 886 So. 2d 721 (Miss. 2004) (shift of burden in contempt: prima facie case and requirement for clear-and-convincing proof of inability to pay)
- Crow v. Crow, 622 So. 2d 1226 (Miss. 1993) (separate agreement can bind parent to post-emancipation college support)
- Boleware v. Boleware, 450 So. 2d 92 (Miss. 1984) (divorce decree language construed to require post-majority educational support when parties intended it)
- Nichols v. Tedder, 547 So. 2d 766 (Miss. 1989) (no legal duty to support after emancipation absent agreement)
- Varner v. Varner, 666 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 1995) (burden on contemnor to prove inability to pay with particularity)
- Trovato v. Trovato, 649 So. 2d 815 (Miss. 1995) (trial court accepts master's findings of fact unless manifestly wrong; court’s options in reviewing a master's report)