Tatum v. Tatum, 105 So. 3d 1141

2008 divorce granted to Lauren on adultery grounds against Joseph.
2008 custody/distribution/related judgments awarded Lauren $15,500 in attorney’s fees (in addition to $4,500 already paid).
Joseph appealed alleging the chancellor failed to apply McKee factors and governing law for attorney’s fees.
2010 this Court reversed and remanded in part for determination of attorney’s fees under McKee.
2011 mandate issued by this Court.
2011 chancery court awarded Lauren $26,237.50 in attorney’s fees and interest; Joseph appeals again.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-judgment interest was within the mandate’s scope	Tatum: interest not instructed in mandate; beyond scope	Tatum’s position is not applicable; Lauren seeks interest	Interest award reversed and rendered; outside mandate scope
Whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded under McKee	Lauren proved inability to pay and McKee factors met; discretionary award appropriate	Chancellor’s discretion supported by McKee factors	Affirmed award of attorney’s fees; no abuse of discretion
Whether attorney’s fees incurred on appeal were properly awarded	Appeal fees were not awarded by this Court; error	This Court assessed all costs of the appeal against Joseph; award proper	Issue deemed moot/without merit; appellate fees upheld by court
Whether Lauren’s unclean-hands status barred relief	Lauren’s prior noncompliance barred further relief	Issue decides on unclean-hands doctrine	Moot; treated as resolved by mandate issue and not decided on the merits

McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (criteria for attorney’s-fees in dissolution actions; factors guiding award)
Freeman v. Public Employees’ Retirement Sys., 822 So.2d 274 (Miss. 2002) (mandate scope; distinguishes relief awarded from mandate language)
Freeman v. Public Employees’ Retirement Sys., 868 So.2d 327 (Miss. 2004) (mandate did not address interest; circuit court exceeded mandate)
Pruitt v. Payne, 14 So.3d 806 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (unclean-hands doctrine; thy applicability when returning to court)
Lane v. Lane, 850 So.2d 122 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (definition of unclean hands in equity)
Chapman v. Ward, 3 So.3d 790 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (unclean-hands discussion cited by court)
R.K. v. J.K., 946 So.2d 764 (Miss. 2007) (unclean-hands context in Mississippi appellate law)
Wells v. Wells, 800 So.2d 1239 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (attack on fees where disparity in earning capacity)
Robison v. Robison, 722 So.2d 601 (Miss. 1998) (income/assets consideration in fees)