McMinn v. McMinn
171 So. 3d 511
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Divorce decree awarded Sharon permanent alimony ($1,000, later reduced to $750), child custody to Sharon, child support from Keith ($543/month), and a $100,000 equitable-distribution payment to Sharon; final decree entered Sept. 12, 2011.
- Caleb (minor child) moved in with Keith in June 2011; Keith stopped paying child support then and later sought modification of the judgment.
- Keith obtained a modification trial (Sept. 19, 2012); chancellor awarded physical custody to Keith, credited Keith with arrearages accruing while Caleb lived with him, terminated the prior $543 ongoing support, and ordered Sharon to pay $332/month going forward.
- Keith sought (1) back child support and educational/medical support, (2) downward modification of alimony based on Sharon’s net worth and inheritance, and (3) termination of Sharon’s alimony based on alleged cohabitation with George Rooks.
- Trial court denied termination of alimony and declined further modification; on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the chancellor’s factual findings and no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Back child support & unpaid educational/medical expenses | Keith: Sharon should owe back child support and other support for period June 2011–Jan 2013 | Sharon: No enforceable order required during period; custody changed and arrearage credits apply | Court: No error — chancellor credited Keith for arrearages from custody change; no back support awarded beyond credit; admonished parties to pay future expenses |
| 2. Court failed to consider Sharon’s net worth / make on‑record findings | Keith: Sharon’s increased resources (possible inheritance) and asset values justify reducing alimony and require explicit findings | Sharon: No proven material change in resources; insufficient evidence of inheritance or increased means | Court: No reversible error — no proven material change; speculative inheritance insufficient; specific on‑record findings not required here |
| 3. Termination of alimony for alleged cohabitation / de facto marriage | Keith: Sharon cohabited with Rooks and received mutual support, so alimony should terminate | Sharon: Relationship was dating; she maintained separate residence and paid her own bills; no financial support proven | Court: No error — chancellor’s factual finding of no mutual financial support upheld; dating/overnights alone do not terminate alimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks v. Weeks, 29 So.3d 80 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (standard and factors for material change in child‑support modification)
- Tanner v. Roland, 598 So.2d 783 (Miss. 1992) (child‑support payments vest as they accrue and cannot be retroactively modified)
- Varner v. Varner, 588 So.2d 428 (Miss. 1991) (noncustodial parent entitled to credit for arrearages during custody change)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (factors to consider in awarding alimony)
- Byars v. Byars, 850 So.2d 147 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (chancellor’s broad discretion in alimony decisions)
- Holliday v. Stockman, 969 So.2d 136 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (credit to parent who proves payments were used for child’s needs)
- Coggins v. Coggins, 132 So.3d 636 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (presumption of mutual support from cohabitation; deference to chancellor’s factual findings)