Rogers v. Rogers
94 So. 3d 1258
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Charles and Julianne married in 1997; no children.
- Charles filed for divorce in 2008 on grounds including adultery; Julianne answered with counterclaims for permanent separate maintenance.
- March 18, 2009 final divorce decree: Charles awarded divorce; Julianne awarded $16,000 home equity, $32,000 from retirement, ownership of remainder of retirement; rehabilitative alimony $400/month for 36 months plus medical insurance.
- Nov 3, 2009 Julianne moved for contempt for nonpayment of home equity, insurance, and medical expenses; Charles claimed compliance.
- Feb 22, 2010 contempt finding; ordered payment of remaining items and insurance; Mar 1, 2010 Julianne moved to amend judgment and seek interest; Mar 3, 2010 Rule 60(b) relief alleging Charles misrepresented income on Rule 8.05.
- July 6, 2010 chancellor found fraud on the court based on Rule 8.05 misrepresentation and increased rehabilitative alimony to $1,000/month for 36 months; Charles appealed on fraud and res judicata; Aug 5, 2010 contempt motion sought arrearage of $10,200; Sept 28, 2010 contempt and medical costs; court awarded $10,200 alimony with eight percent interest from April 1, 2009 through Aug 1, 2010; Charles appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud in the Rule 8.05 statement | Rogers argues no clear and convincing fraud; trial testimony showed two-week pay periods contradicting the 8.05 statement. | Rogers contends misstatement supports fraud finding | Fraud not proven; reversal of fraud finding; reinstates original decree. |
| Res judicata applicability | Rogers argues res judicata bars modification of alimony | Julianne contends modification based on fraud could proceed | Res judicata does not bar modification here; fraud-based modification invalid; original decree reinstated. |
| Weight of the evidence governing alimony modification | Rogers contends modified alimony supported by fraud finding | Court erred by crediting fraud; original alimony terms reinstated; no sustained weight-of-evidence basis for fraud-based increase. | |
| Alimony award/arrearage and method of calculation | Rogers seeks $10,200 arrearage under modified judgment | Original decree reinstated; no lump-sum alimony; arrearage not awarded under fraud-based modification. | |
| Attorney’s fees | Rogers challenges fee award as based on fraud finding | Affirmed award of attorney’s fees; substantial evidence supports fees due to noncompliance and contempt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. Tanner, 594 So.2d 1164 (Miss. 1992) (four nonexclusive factors to vacate a decree for fraud; burden requires clear and convincing proof)
- Trim v. Trim, 33 So.3d 471 (Miss. 2010) (fraud on the court can result from substantially false Rule 8.05 statements)
- Hamilton v. McGill, 352 So.2d 825 (Miss. 1977) (fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; high standard)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (McKee factors govern attorney’s fees awards)
- Shaeffer v. Shaeffer, 370 So.2d 240 (Miss. 1979) (supports fee award for post-decree conduct; related principles)
- Prescott v. Prescott, 736 So.2d 409 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (no specific McKee finding needed when fees justified by contempt or discovery issues)