Stasny v. Wages
116 So. 3d 195
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Lori Stasny and John Wages divorced in 2004; their settlement provided joint custody and split child-related expenses, including contributions to college trusts.
- In 2008 the parties modified the agreement: Stasny obtained custody of Sarah (daughter) and would be responsible for Sarah’s expenses; Wages took custody of Tyler and his expenses; college contributions were adjusted.
- In 2009 Stasny petitioned to terminate Wages’s parental rights; both children joined the petition; a GAL reported Sarah (then 16) wanted termination and adoption by her stepfather, but statutory grounds were unclear.
- The termination petition remained unresolved; in 2010 Stasny sought contempt and modification (child support) against Wages; by the 2011 hearing Sarah was 18, and Tyler was emancipated, so only Sarah’s support was at issue.
- At the hearing Sarah testified she had not seen Wages in two years, joined efforts to terminate his rights, and prioritized other things over visiting him; the chancellor found her conduct "clear and extreme" and terminated Wages’s financial obligations (child support, medical, extracurriculars, vehicles, college trust).
- Stasny appealed; the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding substantial evidence supported forfeiture of support and that college-age forfeiture standards also applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stasny) | Defendant's Argument (Wages) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor abused discretion in finding Sarah’s conduct sufficient to forfeit Wages’s support obligations | Chancellor erred; Sarah’s conduct did not meet the required "clear and extreme" standard to terminate support | Sarah’s actions (joining termination petition, refusing visits) justified forfeiture | No abuse of discretion; substantial evidence supports chancellor’s finding |
| Appropriate legal standard for terminating support of a college-aged child | Caldwell’s "clear and extreme" standard required | Hambrick standard for college-age children (relationship/worthiness test) applies | Hambrick standard applicable to college-aged child; chancellor’s decision valid under either standard |
| Whether termination of financial obligations was beyond chancellor’s authority because obligations were contractual (divorce settlement) | The college trust obligation is contractual and should be enforced | Settlement is quasi-contractual and modifiable by the court upon material change | Chancellor may modify decree/quasi-contract when material change exists; termination permissible |
| Whether relief granted was outside pleadings (procedural fairness) | Court granted relief Wages didn’t plead; procedural error | Issue was fairly before court via Stasny’s petitions and parties’ requests to conform pleadings to evidence | No procedural error; termination was properly before the chancellor |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Brown, 805 So.2d 649 (Miss. Ct. App.) (example of child conduct deemed "clear and extreme" to forfeit support)
- Caldwell v. Caldwell, 579 So.2d 543 (Miss.) (articulates "clear and extreme" standard for support forfeiture for minors)
- Hambrick v. Prestwood, 382 So.2d 474 (Miss.) (standard for terminating support of college-aged children: relationship/worthiness of child)
- Blakely v. Blakely, 88 So.3d 798 (Miss. Ct. App.) (applies Hambrick to college-aged child forfeiture)
- Varner v. Varner, 666 So.2d 493 (Miss.) (divorce settlement terms are quasi-contractual and modifiable)
- Markofski v. Holzhauer, 799 So.2d 162 (Miss. Ct. App.) (upholding denial of college-payment obligation where child’s conduct toward parent justified relief)
- Evans v. Evans, 994 So.2d 765 (Miss.) (court may grant relief not expressly pled if matter was before the court)
- Brennan v. Brennan, 638 So.2d 1320 (Miss.) (issues touching on subject of petition are within court’s consideration)