Leslie B. Shumake, Jr. v. Katarina Sitton Shumake
147 So. 3d 352
Miss.2014Background
- Chancery Court granted divorce (Feb 2009) and ordered Leslie Shumake to pay Katarina Shumake $5,750/month in periodic alimony starting Feb 1, 2009.
- Leslie paid less (initially $650/week), then filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy; Katarina filed contempt for underpayment and sought arrears.
- Aug 2009 order found Leslie $19,300 in arrears; chancellor ordered conveyance of Leslie’s interest in the marital home (valued $16,250) plus cash to cover remainder and reserved further ruling on arrears.
- Parties discussed a November 2010 order (not in record) under which Leslie allegedly paid $750/week beginning Sept 6, 2010; parties agreed that if original amount remained, arrears would be $58,550.
- April 12, 2012 chancellor held Leslie owed $58,550 plus interest and set repayment terms beginning after completion of Chapter 13.
- Court of Appeals reversed as “fundamentally unfair,” holding the court effectively approved a reduced $750/week payment and Leslie was current as of April 2011; Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Katarina) | Defendant's Argument (Leslie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leslie owed $58,550 in alimony arrearage based on the original $5,750/mo order | Arrearage computed from unmodified original order; no court order permanently reduced payments | Leslie contends payments were effectively reduced (voluntary reduction/November 2010 order) and he should not be charged full arrearage | Court held arrears vested when due; no court order permanently modified alimony, so $58,550 arrearage stands |
| Whether a party may unilaterally reduce court-ordered alimony | N/A (argues original order controls) | Argues he could not afford full amount and reduction was justified by hardship and bankruptcy | Court held unilateral reduction invalid; modification requires chancery court order |
| Effect of Leslie’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy on alimony obligations | Arrearage remains; bankruptcy doesn't nullify support obligation | Bankruptcy constitutes changed circumstances warranting modification | Court held bankruptcy does not automatically alter alimony obligations; court may account for it in repayment timing but does not erase arrears |
| Whether Court of Appeals properly reversed chancellor as "fundamentally unfair" | N/A | N/A (Court of Appeals found reversal appropriate on facts) | Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals; found reversal unsupported by caselaw or record and reinstated chancery judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowe v. Bowe, 557 So. 2d 793 (Miss. 1990) (periodic alimony vests when payment is due and may be modified only by court order)
- Gregg v. Montgomery, 587 So. 2d 928 (Miss. 1991) (court cannot relieve civil liability for already-accrued payments)
- Varner v. Varner, 666 So. 2d 493 (Miss. 1995) (bankruptcy does not necessarily constitute a substantial change warranting modification of support)
- Hardy v. Brock, 826 So. 2d 71 (Miss. 2002) (appellate courts may not consider matters outside the record)
- McCardle v. McCardle, 862 So. 2d 1290 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (standard of review: chancery findings will not be disturbed unless abuse of discretion)
- Denson v. George, 642 So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (chancery court factual findings entitled to deference)