296 So.3d 227
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Michael Dixon was ordered in 2005 to pay $334/month child support for his daughter Allison and to maintain health insurance; he claims no visitation since 2005.
- In August 2017 Dixon petitioned to cease support and terminate parental rights; DHS filed a cross-complaint April 2018 to increase support under the statutory guideline (14% of adjusted gross income).
- DHS argued Dixon’s adjusted gross income increased and that a prior support obligation for another child had ended, freeing income for Allison’s support.
- After multiple hearings, the chancellor set support at $491/month (14% per statute), found Olmstead in willful contempt for denying visitation, and awarded Dixon $580 (mileage) plus $1,000 in attorney’s fees.
- Dixon appealed, arguing there was no evidence of a material change or proof of his income to justify the upward modification and that the $1,000 fee award was inadequate.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt-fee award but reversed and remanded the support modification for additional evidence of Dixon’s income to justify the $491 amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dixon) | Defendant's Argument (DHS/Olmstead) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the child-support order could be increased | No evidentiary proof of a material change or of Dixon’s current income; modification was erroneous | DHS: three-year review/statutory authority allows modification without proving material change here; court had facts to infer income increase and that 14% equals $491 | Modification authority affirmed in principle, but reversed and remanded for the chancellor to take/recite evidence of Dixon’s income to support the $491 figure |
| Adequacy of attorney’s fees awarded for contempt | Requested $2,500; $1,000 was insufficient | DHS notes it could not represent Olmstead on contempt; court may award reasonable fees for enforcing custody/visitation orders | Chancellor’s $1,000 attorney-fee award affirmed (chancellor has broad discretion; moving party provided no detailed fee proof) |
Key Cases Cited
- Clausel v. Clausel, 714 So.2d 265 (Miss. 1998) (reversal/remand required where chancellor failed to make on-record findings establishing obligor's income to support non-guideline award)
- In re C.T., 228 So.3d 311 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (child-support guideline and modification standards explained)
- Dufour v. Dufour, 631 So.2d 192 (Miss. 1994) (need for on-the-record findings to avoid reversal)
- Heisinger v. Riley, 243 So.3d 248 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (attorney’s fees awarded when contemnor willfully violates court order; fees limited to expenses caused by contempt)
- Vincent v. Rickman, 167 So.3d 245 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (contemnor need not show inability to pay; fee award must be reasonable)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (factors chancellors consider when awarding attorney’s fees)