Roberts v. Roberts
110 So. 3d 820
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Stephanie appeals the chancellor's rulings on contempt, attorneys’ fees, and custody/child-support modifications.
- Scott and Stephanie divorced in 2010 after drafting an internet-based property settlement and custody agreement without attorneys.
- The agreement provided joint physical custody but practical custody favored Stephanie for the children; Scott was to pay $150 weekly in child support.
- During the school year, Tristan lived primarily with Scott, while Carleigh remained with Stephanie; weekends were alternated.
- Scott stopped paying child support; Stephanie sued for contempt and asked for $5,400; Scott counter-moved to modify.
- The chancery court found an extrajudicial custody modification, ordered Scott to pay $2,700, and modified custody so neither party owed ongoing child support; contempt and fees were addressed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt for failure to pay support | Stephanie contends Scott was in contempt for unpaid support of $5,400. | Scott argues no contempt due to good-faith misunderstanding or inability to pay. | Court held Scott in contempt; reversed and rendered for Stephanie on this issue. |
| Attorneys’ fees related to contempt | Stephanie seeks fees incurred proving contempt. | Scott argues fees should follow existing rules without additional penalties. | Remanded to determine the portion of fees attributable to contempt; award of appellate fees augmented by 50% after final determination. |
| Modification of child support | Stephanie argues modification was improper while Scott had unclean hands. | Scott contends modification was proper under the circumstances. | Court held the chancellor did not err in modifying child support so that neither party owed ongoing support. |
| Modification of child custody | Stephanie challenges the custody modification awarding Scott primary physical custody without a proper change in circumstances analysis. | Scott contends the counter-motion to modify adequately requested custody modification. | Remanded for further proceedings; majority affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, with Thornell/Albright analysis required for proper custody modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Varner v. Varner, 588 So.2d 428 (Miss. 1991) (equitable adjustments to support may be approved post-divorce)
- Bryant v. Bryant, 924 So.2d 627 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (extrajudicial adjustments to support may modify obligations)
- Andres v. Andres, 22 So.3d 314 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (arrearage can 'clean' unclean hands for modification purposes)
- Thornell v. Thornell, 860 So.2d 1241 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (need for specific change in circumstances and Albright analysis in custody modification)
- Sturgis v. Sturgis, 792 So.2d 1020 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (Albright framework for custody determinations)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 724 So.2d 335 (Miss. 1998) (unclean hands doctrine in modification context)
- Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276 (Miss. 1967) (ability to pay required to modify support where arrears exist)
- Makamson v. Makamson, 928 So.2d 218 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (appellate standards for attorney fees on appeal)
- Sullivan v. Sullivan, 942 So.2d 305 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (standard of review and evidentiary sufficiency in family matters)
- Evans v. Evans, 75 So.3d 1083 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (clear and convincing standard; limitations on contempt defenses)
- Moran v. Fairley, 919 So.2d 969 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)