301 So.3d 779
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Parties divorced in Florida (2004); shared parenting agreement named Scott primary residential parent and Stefany secondary; Florida order required Stefany to pay $428/month (effective 2007).
- The parties lived together again (2010) and agreed informally to split parenting time roughly 50/50 and to suspend exchange of child support; Florida court later allowed direct payments to Scott (2011).
- In 2014 Scott sought DHS enforcement (he did not seek arrears); DHS began withholding from Stefany; Stefany filed to enroll the Florida judgment in Mississippi, seek modification, and alleged overwithholding.
- Temporary orders (2014–2016) reduced then suspended Stefany’s support obligation; custody shifted and by December 2016 Stefany had sole physical custody and her support obligation was suspended pending trial.
- At trial the chancellor found the parties had agreed to suspend support based on shared custody, held Stefany not in arrears or contempt, denied Scott an offset and attorney’s fees, and ordered Scott to pay child support retroactive to Dec. 2016; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Scott) | Defendant's Argument (Stefany) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arrears | Stefany owed back support: $428/month (Nov 2011–June 2014) and difference after Nov 2014 when reduced to $224 | Parties agreed to suspend child support based on shared custody; Stefany relied on the agreement | Court: No arrears; agreement to forego support bars back-pay (affirmed) |
| Offset | Scott’s arrearage should be offset by Stefany’s alleged arrears | No arrears existed for Stefany, so no offset appropriate | Court: No offset because Stefany not in arrears |
| Contempt | Stefany misrepresented earnings and had ability to pay; should be held in contempt | Agreement to suspend support excuses nonpayment; no contempt | Court: No contempt; chancellor’s exercise of discretion affirmed |
| Attorney’s fees | Scott seeks fees for enforcing counterclaims and contempt claims | Stefany argues no entitlement because she prevailed on arrears/contempt issues | Court: Denied — Scott unsuccessful on counterclaims, no basis for fees |
| Injunctive relief | Scott sought injunction to bar Stefany from disparaging him re: her other son | Chancery court: other son not a party; injunctive claim must be separate action | Court: Issue procedurally barred on appeal; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Bryant, 924 So. 2d 627 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (oral/extra‑judicial agreement to suspend support can bar back‑pay and contempt claims)
- Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So. 2d 623 (Miss. 2002) (appellate deference to chancery court factual findings)
- Durr v. Durr, 912 So. 2d 1033 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (prima facie contempt burden shifting in child‑support enforcement)
- Martin v. Borries, 282 So. 3d 472 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (voluntary reduction of income may defeat modification relief)