William L. Peebles v. Sandra A. Peebles
153 So. 3d 728
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- William and Sandra Peebles executed a property settlement agreement (PSA) in their 2004 divorce: Sandra received the marital home; William agreed to convey his interest and to be responsible for the house note, taxes, and insurance until sale, Sandra’s remarriage, or death; both waived alimony and claims on each other’s retirement.
- Sandra filed a contempt action in 2011 alleging William stopped making house-note payments; William contended she temporarily waived payments during his post-surgery recovery and sought credit for Social Security amounts Sandra began receiving from his record.
- William filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in June 2012, listing Sandra as a creditor for a domestic support obligation; he received a general Chapter 7 discharge in October 2012; Sandra did not timely object to discharge.
- The chancellor denied William’s summary-judgment motion seeking discharge, holding the house-note obligation was a nondischargeable domestic support obligation and rejecting William’s request for a dollar-for-dollar credit for Sandra’s Social Security receipts because the PSA made no such provision.
- The parties then entered a consent judgment: William acknowledged owing $64,686.60 (house arrears, Medicare supplement, and $10,000 attorneys’ fees) and agreed to monthly payments; he preserved only the right to appeal the denial of a Social Security credit, not the bankruptcy-discharge ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (William) | Defendant's Argument (Sandra) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether William’s house-note obligation was discharged in Chapter 7 | Discharge in bankruptcy eliminated obligation | House-note obligation is a domestic support obligation and nondischargeable | Barred by consent judgment; on merits, obligation is nondischargeable under §523(a)(5) |
| Whether William is entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit for Social Security benefits Sandra receives | Social Security withdrawals from his benefits should offset missed house-note payments dollar-for-dollar | PSA contains no provision granting such credit; no alimony award to convert SS to support | Denied: no contractual basis in PSA and Spalding (alimony context) does not apply |
| Whether consent judgment can be appealed based on relitigation of discharge issue | William sought to relitigate discharge despite signing consent judgment | Consent judgments have binding effect; appeal allowed only for limited grounds (fraud, mistake, etc.) | Consent judgment is binding; bankruptcy issue is not preserved for appeal |
| Whether PSA can be modified to grant credit based on changed circumstances | Requests modification to provide offset for SS benefits | PSA is an enforceable contract; absent fraud/mistake, courts should not modify it | PSA not modified; no special circumstances warranting reformation |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Malouf, 826 So. 2d 1256 (Miss. 2002) (consent judgments have same force and effect as contested judgments)
- Rushing v. Rushing, 724 So. 2d 911 (Miss. 1998) (consent-judgment appeals are limited to Rule 60(b)-type grounds)
- Sanghi v. Sanghi, 759 So. 2d 1250 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (discussion of appealability of consent judgments after statutory change)
- Spalding v. Spalding, 691 So. 2d 435 (Miss. 1997) (derivative Social Security benefits can substitute for alimony in appropriate circumstances)
- McFarland v. McFarland, 105 So. 3d 1111 (Miss. 2013) (property settlement agreements are contracts and are enforced absent special circumstances)