Rachel D. Thomas v. Michael J. Crews
203 So. 3d 701
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Rachel Thomas and Michael Crews divorced in 2007 and entered a custody/support agreement for their daughter, Lunden, including $560 monthly child support and splitting "extracurricular" expenses.
- Over time disputes arose about Lunden’s ADHD treatment, visitation logistics, and her participation in competitive volleyball.
- Thomas petitioned in 2014 to modify custody, visitation, and child support and sought attorney’s fees; hearing was held May 5, 2015 after discovery disputes and subpoenas.
- Chancellor found three material changes of circumstance: Thomas’s move to north Mississippi, Lunden’s participation in competitive volleyball, and substantial income increases for both parents.
- Chancellor increased child support to $1,000/month, clarified that "extracurricular" refers to school-sponsored activities (not competitive club volleyball), denied retroactive support, and denied attorney’s fees to both parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $1,000/month child support was an abuse of discretion | Thomas argued the award was improper and guidelines should control | Crews argued the chancellor properly considered his business expenses and other obligations | Affirmed: award supported by substantial credible evidence; chancellor considered deviations under §43-19-103(j) and used Crews’s salary and portion of LLC income |
| Whether "extracurricular" should cover competitive volleyball | Thomas argued extracurriculars include competitive volleyball and expenses should be split | Crews argued extracurricular means school-sponsored activities only | Affirmed: court clarified extracurriculars are school activities; competitive volleyball not automatically covered |
| Whether retroactive upward modification of support was required | Thomas sought retroactive relief to the date of change | Crews opposed retroactivity | Affirmed: chancellor permissively declined retroactive modification under §43-19-34(4) |
| Whether attorney’s fees should be awarded | Thomas sought fees based on discovery dispute and need | Crews sought fees as well | Affirmed: chancellor found both parties able to pay; denied fees as not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Pagel, 172 So. 3d 162 (Miss. 2015) (standard of review for chancery decisions)
- Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 153 So. 3d 703 (Miss. 2014) (chancellors afforded wide latitude in domestic-relations equitable remedies)
- Newsom v. Newsom, 557 So. 2d 511 (Miss. 1990) (appellate assumption in absence of specific chancellor findings)
- Chesney v. Chesney, 910 So. 2d 1057 (Miss. 2005) (child-support awards are fact-finding exercises)
- A.M.L. v. J.W.L., 98 So. 3d 1001 (Miss. 2012) (retroactive upward modifications permissive, not mandatory)
- Magee v. Magee, 661 So. 2d 1117 (Miss. 1995) (attorney-fee awards in domestic cases based on ability to pay)
- Yelverton v. Yelverton, 961 So. 2d 19 (Miss. 2007) (requirements for on-the-record findings when deviating from guidelines)
- West v. West, 23 So. 3d 558 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (procedural bar for failing to raise lack of written finding below)