Kenneth Moreland v. Brandi Moreland Greenwood Spears
187 So. 3d 661
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Kenneth Moreland (father) and Brandy Moreland Greenwood Spears (mother) divorced in 2012; one child, Lauren. Divorce decree: joint legal custody, Brandy primary physical custodian, Ken liberal visitation, Ken to pay $400/month child support and one-half of preschool/private-school and up to two extracurricular activity expenses if the parties agree to enroll/activities.
- In August 2013 Brandy petitioned to modify custody and visitation, sought sole legal custody, changed visitation (including preventing Ken from taking Lauren to school), a mental evaluation of Ken, and contempt/reimbursement for unpaid school/activity costs.
- Chancellor (March 28, 2014) granted Brandy sole legal custody, modified visitation, and awarded Brandy the right to claim Lauren as dependent each year; Ken appealed.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed standard Mississippi deference to chancellors (manifest error/clearly erroneous) and contract interpretation de novo for the divorce/property-settlement agreement.
- Appellate court analyzed whether (1) a material change in circumstances occurred, (2) any change adversely affected Lauren, and (3) modification was in Lauren’s best interests; it also examined whether the decree obligated Ken to pay private-school/activity expenses and whether the visitation schedule was failing.
Issues
| Issue | Brandy's Argument | Ken's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor properly awarded Brandy sole legal custody | Ken’s missed payments, alleged deterioration in parenting, tardiness, classroom disruption, and mental-health concerns amount to a material change adversely affecting Lauren and justify sole legal custody | Decree required mutual agreement before Ken had to pay private preschool/activity costs; missed payments therefore not a material change; evidence did not show adverse effects on Lauren | Reversed: no material change/adverse effect proven; Albright factors not applied; legal custody restored to Ken |
| Whether visitation schedule should be modified (preventing Ken from taking Lauren to school) | Tardiness and classroom incidents while Lauren was with Ken show the schedule is not working and should be changed | Prior visitation was short-lived (<1 year) and tardiness attributable to both parents; insufficient proof schedule failed | Reversed: insufficient evidence that prior schedule failed or that modification was in Lauren’s best interests; original visitation reinstated |
| Whether Ken was obligated to pay one-half of private-school and activity expenses under decree | Decree language obligates Ken to pay one-half of school/activity costs (Brandy treats his nonpayment as basis for remedies) | Decree conditions payment on mutual agreement to enroll in private school/activities; Ken did not agree, so no obligation | Court of Appeals (de novo) held contract requires mutual agreement; Ken not obligated absent agreement |
| Whether chancellor properly altered property-settlement term awarding tax dependency to Brandy each year | Stripping Ken’s alternating right was justified by his failure to pay educational/activity costs | Original property-settlement granted alternating years; chancellor lacked sufficient basis to amend that term | Reversed and rendered: original alternating tax deduction provision restored |
Key Cases Cited
- A.M.L. v. J.W.L., 98 So. 3d 1001 (Miss. 2012) (standard of review and chancellor deference in custody cases)
- Mabus v. Mabus, 847 So. 2d 815 (Miss. 2003) (elements required to modify custody: material change, adverse effect, best interests)
- Marascalco v. Marascalco, 445 So. 2d 1380 (Miss. 1984) (chancellor fact-findings entitled to deference)
- Gaiennie v. McMillin, 138 So. 3d 131 (Miss. 2014) (property-settlement agreement is a contract; interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Spain v. Holland, 483 So. 2d 318 (Miss. 1986) (consider totality of circumstances when assessing material change)
- Sudduth v. Mowdy, 991 So. 2d 1241 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (egregious parental conduct not sufficient to change custody absent adverse effect on child)
- Wikel v. Miller, 53 So. 3d 29 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (custody/visitation modification requires demonstration of adverse effects and that prior arrangement failed)
- H.L.S. v. R.S.R., 949 So. 2d 794 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for modifying visitation and chancellor discretion)
- Ellis v. Ellis, 840 So. 2d 806 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (visitation modification requires showing prior decree is not working)
- Jones v. McQuage, 932 So. 2d 846 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (reversed visitation modification based on child tardiness; short duration of prior schedule relevant)
- Witters v. Witters, 864 So. 2d 999 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (reversal where custodial parent failed to show prior visitation ineffective or child adversely affected)
- Riley v. Riley, 884 So. 2d 791 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (denial of modification where no evidence transportation/ schedule failed)
- Albright v. Albright, 437 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 1983) (factors to determine child custody)