John R. Bell v. Lori M. Bell
206 So. 3d 1254
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- John R. "Jack" Bell and Lori Bell divorced in 2010; their written settlement set child support at $1,700/month and allocated $130,000 in student-loan debt to Lori (loans were in her name but used by both). Jack agreed to pay private-school tuition and other child-related expenses.
- Shortly after the divorce Jack lost steady employment, paid $625/month for a period, and later filed to modify support in May 2012 seeking reduction to $625/month and other relief.
- At the April 2014 modification hearing Jack’s adjusted gross monthly income was $2,575.35; the chancellor found a material change and reduced Jack’s payment to $865/month in statutory child support plus $135/month for student-loan repayment, totaling $1,000/month (down from $1,700).
- The court held Jack in contempt for arrearages and entered judgment of $37,832.35 for past-due child support, extracurriculars, medicals, and failure to fund MPACT; ordered a $3,297.48 lump-sum payment then $135/month thereafter, and ordered Jack to pay $30,500 toward Lori’s student loans and $1,000 in attorney’s fees.
- Jack appealed, challenging (1) inclusion of private-school tuition as part of his support obligation/deviation from guidelines, (2) the lump-sum student-loan award and its calculation, and (3) the attorney-fee award for contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Bell's Argument | Lori's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor erred by including private-school tuition as part of modified child support (deviation from guidelines) | Inclusion was improper; court needed specific finding to deviate and cannot add tuition to statutory support | Parties’ prior agreement and testimony showed tuition was part of the original support calculus; chancellor sufficiently found material change and justified deviation | Court affirmed: sufficient finding to include tuition and deviate given prior agreement and testimony; modification proper |
| Whether chancellor erred in awarding Jack a lump-sum share of Lori’s student-loan debt ($30,500) | Calculation errors; Lori’s law-school costs were higher/structured differently; at most Jack owed $17,000 under correct math | Chancellor’s allocation based on testimony separating Lori’s law-school portion vs joint living loans; award justified | Court found numerical error in using $135,000 vs $130,000 and reduced judgment: reversed and rendered judgment for $28,000 in Jack’s share (corrected amount) |
| Whether attorney’s fees ($1,000) were proper in contempt adjudication | Fees improper because contempt was not willful | Fees appropriate for enforcement of obligations | Court reversed fee award: chancellor expressly found contempt not willful, so fee award reversed |
| Whether chancellor’s modification and contempt findings were supported by evidence and law | Modification appropriate due to changed earnings; arrearages supported | Same; chancellor acted within discretion | Court affirmed modification and contempt judgment (except for student-loan arithmetic and attorney-fee award) |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So. 2d 623 (Miss. 2002) (appellate deference to chancellor’s factual findings)
- Clausel v. Clausel, 714 So. 2d 265 (Miss. 1998) (child-support awards are fact-finding and reviewed deferentially)
- Morris v. Stacey, 641 So. 2d 1194 (Miss. 1994) (broad chancellor discretion in modifying child support)
- Short v. Short, 131 So. 3d 1149 (Miss. 2014) (enforcement of a voluntarily assumed support obligation despite guideline disparity)
- Stigler v. Stigler, 48 So. 3d 547 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (parties may contract to provide more than statutory support and courts may enforce such agreements)
- Southerland v. Southerland, 816 So. 2d 1004 (Miss. 2002) (treatment of private-school tuition in child-support analysis)
- Moses v. Moses, 879 So. 2d 1043 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (private-school tuition considerations in support awards)
- Kilgore v. Fuller, 741 So. 2d 351 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (children’s private-school tuition and guideline computation)
- Price v. Price, 5 So. 3d 1151 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (enforcement of property-settlement agreements absent overreaching)