122 So. 3d 153
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Marin filed a chancery court complaint seeking joint legal custody, visitation, and child support against Stewart in Harrison County on April 15, 2010.
- A temporary order required Marin to pay $455.23 per month in child support, which the chancellor finalized in the final order; Marin’s motion to reconsider was denied.
- Marin appeals contending seven errors, including misapplication of the child-support guidelines and consideration of assets and income.
- At the initial hearing, Marin’s income was adjusted from $27,199.07 to $28,000 and Stewart’s 2010 gross income was $25,018; Marin and his wife lived with his mother and paid no rent, while Stewart paid daycare and shared some living expenses.
- Stewart testified to daycare costs and Stevens’ residence with her parents; Marin testified his mother would care for the child for free, but Stewart preferred daycare.
- The chancellor deviated upward from the guideline 14% to 25% of Marin’s adjusted gross income, finding that day care and other expenses justified higher support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancellor properly deviated from guidelines | Marin argues §43-19-103(g) applies due to shared parenting/visitation | Stewart contends deviation was inappropriate or inadequately tied to criteria | Procedural bar; findings supported deviation under §43-19-103 due to daycare costs |
| Whether undisclosed Social Security benefits affect support | Marin asserts §43-19-103(h) requires considering all assets, including the $1,000/mo SS benefits | Stewart’s SS benefits relate to another child and are not a proper deduction from Marin's obligation | No error; benefits belonged to Stewart’s other child and did not reduce Marin's obligation |
| Whether Marin's wife’s income was improperly considered | Marin contends spouse income should be excluded per §43-19-101(3)(a) | Chancellor did not rely on Marin’s wife’s income as part of gross income | Issue meritless; no improper consideration of wife’s income; barred from appeal but affirmed |
| Whether Marin’s and Stewart’s residential status unjustly affected the award | Marin claims he was penalized for living with his mother while Stewart also lived with her parents | Chancellor found Marin’s expenses minimal and Stewart’s daycare costs justified higher support | Affirmed; deviation upward not based solely on Marin’s living arrangement |
Key Cases Cited
- Yelverton v. Yelverton, 26 So.3d 1053 (Miss.2010) (limited appellate review in domestic-relations; factual findings must be clearly erroneous)
- Hensarling v. Hensarling, 824 So.2d 583 (Miss.2002) (on-record findings may justify deviation from guidelines with fewer criteria discussed)
- Smith v. Smith, 25 So.3d 369 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (affirming on-the-record findings when multiple criteria considered)
- Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So.2d 1185 (Miss.2008) (procedural bar for raising issue on appeal)
- Edmonds v. Edmonds, 935 So.2d 980 (Miss.2006) (procedural bar on new arguments raised on appeal)