Jennifer Nicole Simmons Lowrey v. Ryan Simmons
186 So. 3d 907
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Jennifer Lowrey and Ryan Simmons divorced in 2008 under a court-approved settlement: Ryan agreed to $450/month child support until college graduation (or age 21 if not in college), to pay college expenses (subject to conditions), and $900/month alimony.
- After an extended estrangement between Ryan and their daughter Jilanna, Ryan sued in 2012 seeking termination/reduction of child support and college expenses and retroactive termination of alimony to Jennifer’s 2010 remarriage; Jennifer counterclaimed for contempt for unpaid support and alimony.
- Chancellor appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to investigate the alleged refusal of visitation and erosion of the parent-child relationship; GAL recommended partial reduction of college expense obligation and counseling but did not recommend full termination of child support.
- Chancellor found Ryan primarily responsible for the erosion (including a period of "inexcusable parental neglect" when Jennifer was hospitalized), but later suspended and ultimately terminated Ryan’s future child-support and college-expense obligations based on the daughter’s continued refusal to reconcile.
- Chancellor upheld the alimony provision as enforceable and not terminated by Jennifer’s remarriage; both parties appealed (Jennifer appealed termination of child support and GAL matters; Ryan cross-appealed alimony termination claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lowrey) | Defendant's Argument (Simmons) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/terms of GAL appointment | GAL order failed to define role per S.G.; appointment caused confusion | Appointment was limited to investigation of visitation/erosion; counsel (Lowrey) approved order | Appointment discretionary; order was sufficiently specific; no reversible error |
| Duty to follow/explain departure from GAL recommendations | Chancellor misstated/ignored GAL recommendations and must explain deviations | Chancellor not required to follow GAL because appointment was discretionary; no statutory mandate to adopt recommendations | No requirement to adopt GAL recommendations when appointment is discretionary; explanation not required here |
| Termination of child support and college expenses based on daughter’s refusal to reconcile | Termination was error: father’s neglect was proximate cause of estrangement; Hambrick line does not permit termination where parent primarily at fault | Support should be terminable where child’s conduct or changed relationship makes support inequitable; chancellor found daughter partly responsible and ordered termination | Reversed: cannot terminate child-support/college obligations where father’s neglect was proximate cause of estrangement; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether alimony terminated upon wife’s remarriage | Alimony should have terminated on remarriage per Simmons’ interpretation | Agreement unambiguously preserved payments through a specified date regardless of remarriage; hybrid agreement enforceable as written | Affirmed: the settlement unambiguously required payments through specified date; alimony did not terminate retroactive to remarriage |
Key Cases Cited
- S.G. v. D.C., 13 So. 3d 269 (Miss. 2009) (trial courts should clearly define GAL role in appointment order)
- Floyd v. Floyd, 949 So. 2d 26 (Miss. 2007) (when GAL appointment is required by law, chancellor should summarize GAL recommendations and state reasons if not adopted)
- Hambrick v. Prestwood, 382 So. 2d 474 (Miss. 1980) (support and college expenses may be conditioned on child’s behavior toward parent for college-aged children)
- Polk v. Polk, 589 So. 2d 123 (Miss. 1991) (Hambrick applied but relief limited where parent bears partial fault for estrangement)
- Stasny v. Wages, 116 So. 3d 195 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (applies Hambrick standard to obligations agreed to in settlement)
- Finch v. Finch, 137 So. 3d 227 (Miss. 2014) (parental animosity can be material change justifying termination of educational expense obligation under Hambrick)
- East v. East, 493 So. 2d 927 (Miss. 1986) (consensual post-divorce support provisions may be enforced as lump-sum/property settlement despite atypical form)
- Elliot v. Rogers, 775 So. 2d 1285 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (courts enforce hybrid consensual alimony/property settlement terms; parties have broad latitude)
- Weathersby v. Weathersby, 693 So. 2d 1348 (Miss. 1997) (enforce divorce settlements absent fraud or overreaching)
- Pass v. Pass, 118 So. 2d 769 (Miss. 1960) (noncustodial parent financially able has duty to provide for college if child is worthy and qualified)