335 So.3d 1088
Miss. Ct. App.2022Background
- Lisa and Derry Hardin married in 1983 and separated in 2013; Lisa filed for separate maintenance and obtained an agreed temporary order in 2014.
- Multiple contempt motions and cross-filing for a fault divorce followed; Derry’s fault-based complaint was dismissed in 2018 and Lisa was granted separate maintenance, with amount and related issues reserved for later hearing.
- At a November 6, 2019 hearing the chancellor recited oral agreements reached in a pretrial conference (repairs, insurance/beneficiary arrangements, financial disclosures); counsel raised no contemporaneous objections but the parties did not submit a signed agreed order as directed.
- The chancellor admitted Lisa’s attorney’s itemized bill, ordered Lisa to submit evidence of payments toward fees within 14 days, and considered McKee factors on the record.
- On January 7, 2020 the chancellor entered a final judgment incorporating the oral pretrial agreement and awarded Lisa separate maintenance ($2,500/month plus $500 annually and other obligations); the chancellor denied Lisa’s request for attorney’s fees because she had not produced required documentation.
- Lisa’s motion to reconsider argued (1) the pretrial-agreement terms should not be included without a signed order and (2) the denial of fees was erroneous; the chancellor denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hardin) | Defendant's Argument (Hardin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancellor erred by incorporating the parties’ pretrial agreement into the final judgment | The pretrial agreement was not signed/approved, so its terms should not be added to the final judgment | Oral agreements announced on the record in open court are binding and may be enforced even if a signed agreed order was not later filed | Court held oral on-the-record agreement was binding; final judgment accurately reflected terms announced at hearing and inclusion was proper |
| Whether denial of Lisa’s request for attorney’s fees was erroneous | Lisa argued she was entitled to fees and later submitted an itemized fee statement and payment details | The chancellor required proof of payments/contributions per McKee; Lisa failed to timely provide documentation ordered by the court | Court affirmed denial: chancellor did not abuse discretion and reasonably denied fees due to lack of required documentation and inability to determine outstanding balance while considering McKee factors |
| Whether the chancellor abused discretion by denying Lisa’s motion to reconsider (Rule 52/59 relief) | Sought additional findings under Rule 52(a) and/or relief under Rule 59(e); argued incomplete application of McKee and mistake about contempt withdrawal | Chancellor had discussed McKee factors and found no discrepancies between record and judgment; motion lacked new evidence or change in law | Court found no basis for relief: no clear error, no new evidence or intervening law, and no manifest injustice; denial affirmed |
| Whether Derry’s request for appellate attorney’s fees should be granted | (Derry sought fees and costs on appeal) | Derry provided no supporting legal authority or a Rule 27(a) motion | Court dismissed the request without prejudice for failure to cite authority and failure to comply with Rule 27(a); he may renew by proper motion before mandate issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (factors for spousal support determination)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (factors for awarding attorney’s fees in chancery matters)
- Samples v. Davis, 904 So. 2d 1061 (Miss. 2004) (agreements should be reduced to writing or recorded by court reporter)
- Pearson v. Pearson Browning, 200 So. 3d 1080 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (oral recitation of settlement terms on the record can bind parties absent showing the final order misstates the agreement)
- Latham v. Latham, 261 So. 3d 1110 (Miss. 2019) (appellate attorney’s fees must be requested in a motion complying with Rule 27(a))
- Gilmer v. Gilmer, 297 So. 3d 324 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (standard of review in domestic-relations chancery matters)