Jonathan Brister v. Phoenicia Martin, 2022-CP-00931-COA

In August 2021, the Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS) filed for child support against Jonathan Brister; the court ordered him to pay $175/month in November 2021 based on his claimed income.
Phoenicia Martin, the child’s mother, soon moved to modify the order, alleging Brister underreported his income and misled the court regarding his finances and health insurance.
Martin presented evidence (including a Facebook post) claiming Brister made over $100,000 annually, while Brister denied this and provided a 2020 tax return to support his position.
The chancellor modified the support order to $950/month in April 2022, but then vacated that order on Brister’s motion and set a new trial.
At the new trial in August 2022, after reviewing new evidence from both parties, the court set support at $350/month and ordered $3,000 in back-owed support; Brister appealed.
While the appeal was pending, Martin sought termination of Brister’s parental rights, leading to a procedural stay, but this appeal only addressed the support order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the April 2022 modification was barred by res judicata	Brister: Modification not allowed; order was final	Martin: Fraud allows modification at any time	Not addressed—April 2022 order was vacated
Whether support can be modified without a material change in circumstances	Brister: No substantial change alleged or proven	Martin: Fraud is a sufficient basis without formal change	No need for showing—new trial vacated previous orders
Whether the chancery court erred procedurally by setting a new order in August 2022	Brister: No jurisdiction for “new trial;” only modification	Martin: New trial allowed due to fraud & inadequate prior hearing	Chancellor acted within discretion under Rule 60(b); affirmed
Whether delay on parental rights termination was unfair or affected support ruling	Brister: Delay led to improper child support obligation	Martin: Not addressed	Not within appellate jurisdiction; not addressed on appeal

Finch v. Finch, 137 So. 3d 227 (Miss. 2014) (courts have authority to sua sponte grant relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) if parties have notice and opportunity to be heard)
Nowell v. Steward, 356 So. 3d 1217 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (modification of child support requires material change in circumstances)
N.E. v. L.H., 761 So. 2d 956 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (appellate court reviews merits of child support issues regardless of appellee’s brief)