Short v. Short
131 So. 3d 1149
Miss.2014Background
- Andy and Kathryn Short divorced in 2007; a property, child-support, and custody agreement provided $50,000 annual child support until kindergarten, then 15% of Andy's AGI with a floor of $36,000 per year.
- In 2011 Kathryn sought contempt for missed payments; Andy sought custody modification and a new child-support calculation based on a material change in circumstances.
- Chancellor found no material change and ordered continued minimum support of $36,000 per year under the original agreement.
- Andy appealed, arguing the court violated statutory guidelines, that the agreement violates Mississippi law, and that AGI was miscalculated.
- Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the chancellor considered relevant factors and that the agreement was adequate under Bell v. Bell.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the automatic escalation/de-escalation clause and whether the chancellor ignored guidelines, and to review income calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the child-support obligation modifiable for material change in circumstances? | Short argues change in Andy's income constitutes material change. | Short contends agreement unmodifiable or properly considered under factors but no change warranted. | Remanded to determine if a material change occurred. |
| Did the chancellor properly apply statutory guidelines given a freely entered agreement? | Short asserts guidelines were disregarded; agreement should be evaluated under Bell. | Short asserts the agreement, not guidelines, governs; court should uphold if adequate and sufficient. | Issue considered; remand for material-change determination; guidance given on enforceability of agreement. |
| Is the escalation/de-escalation clause in the agreement binding and valid under Tedford/Wing/Bruce à la Mississippi law? | Short claims escalation clause may be enforceable and helpful to avoid litigation. | Short argues clause is valid if tied to inflation or earnings; Wing and Tedford guide enforceability. | Escalation clause binding and valid under Tedford/Wing; remanded for material-change determination. |
| Did the chancellor err in calculating Andy's income for determining material change? | Short contends miscalculation (including mortgage as expense) inflated income; monthly income miscomputed. | Short contends calculations align with financial statements; any error harmless or corrigible on remand. | Reversed; remanded for recalculation of income and whether material change exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Bell, 572 So.2d 841 (Miss. 1990) (allowing parties to reach agreements and uphold adequacy for child support)
- Tedford v. Dempsey, 437 So.2d 410 (Miss. 1983) (escalation clauses tied to earnings or inflation may be enforceable)
- Wing v. Wing, 549 So.2d 944 (Miss. 1989) (endorsed escalation clauses with inflation/earnings linkage)
- Bruce v. Bruce, 687 So.2d 1199 (Miss. 1996) (restricted interpretation of how escalation clauses must be tied to factors)
- Stigler v. Stigler, 48 So.3d 547 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (escalation clauses may exceed statutory guidelines if agreement is valid)
- Pipkin v. Dolan, 788 So.2d 834 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (factors for modification analysis in Pipkin framework)
- Tingle v. Tingle, 573 So.2d 1389 (Miss. 1990) (irreconcilable-differences divorce requires material-change finding for modification)
- Morris v. Stacy, 641 So.2d 1194 (Miss. 1994) (recognizes changes in circumstances may affect modification)
- Steiner v. Steiner, 788 So.2d 771 (Miss. 2001) (high alimony payments not excused by poor bargain unless material change)