Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Mississippi Supreme Court
by
Howard Carney III and Andrea Leigh Bell Carney obtained a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. They asked the chancery court to determine child support, alimony, equitable distribution of assets, and attorney's fees. The chancery court determined child support, divided the marital estate, considered alimony but declined to award it, and ordered Howard to pay $5,000 toward Andrea's attorney's fees. Howard appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Howard appealed, claiming that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the chancery court judgment because the chancery court manifestly: (1) failed to divide the marital estate equitably and (2) erred by listing his unvalued social security benefits under his share of the equitable distribution. The Supreme Court agreed with Howard as to the first issue, thus reversed and remanded on that issue. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the chancery court on the second issue. View "Carney v. Carney" on Justia Law

by
Elizabeth Swain and Mona Cates lived together from 2000 until 2006. After they severed their relationship, Swain filed an action seeking the repayment of funds she first had invested in a property in Washington State, which were then used to purchase a residence in Mississippi. The chancellor rejected Swain's claim of a constructive trust or a resulting trust. The chancellor found that Cates had been unjustly enriched by Swain's contributions and awarded Swain a judgment in that amount. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor's rejection of the trust claim but reversed the decision of the chancellor, which was based on unjust enrichment. The Court of Appeals held that, because “cohabitation alone cannot form the basis of an equitable remedy between non-married cohabitants,” the remedy of unjust enrichment was outside the bounds of the chancery court's equitable powers. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the chancellor was empowered to award relief on the basis of unjust enrichment. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent that it affirmed the chancellor's rejection of Swain's claim of a constructive trust or a resulting trust. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals with regard to the unjust-enrichment award. Because the chancellor made a mathematical error in the calculation of the unjust-enrichment award, the Court vacated the chancellor's judgment in part, and remanded the case to the chancery court for entry of judgment in the correct amount. View "Cates v. Swain" on Justia Law

by
Kenton and Katherine McNeese executed a consent agreement to an irreconcilable differences divorce, and the chancellor granted the divorce on that ground. Kenton filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. Kenton appealed the denial of his post-trial motion to reconsider as well as the grant of divorce based on irreconcilable differences. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court. View "McNeese v. McNeese" on Justia Law

by
After a lengthy battle regarding child custody, visitation, and child support, a chancellor granted Frankie Reasor custody of his teenage daughter. But the chancellor found Reasor in arrears on child-support payments, held him in contempt, and entered a judgment in favor of Rose Jordan for back child support. The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal concerned a subsequent hearing in which a second chancellor determined the amount of arrears, entered a fifty-five-percent withholding order to collect the judgment, and ordered Reasor to pay Jordan’s attorney’s fees. Reasor raised five issues on appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the chancellor erred by entering a fifty-five percent withholding order. The Court affirmed the chancellor in all other respects, and remanded the case for recalculation of the withholding. View "Frankie L. Reasor v. Rose M. Johnson Jordan" on Justia Law

by
Holly McKnight and Walter Jenkins were married from 1972 until 2004. The parties have one daughter. After the parties divorced in 2004, they initially shared joint legal custody of their child, with Holly having physical custody. After four years, Walter filed a Petition for Contempt, Modification of Custody and Temporary Visitation. Following a hearing in 2008, custody was modified to give legal and physical custody to Walter, with Holly having regular visitation. Two months after custody was modified, Walter filed a new Petition for Contempt, Modification of Visitation and Temporary Relief in which he accused Holly of not returning all of their child's belongings and sought to make Holly's visitation limited and supervised. As a result, the parties entered into an Agreed Preliminary Injunction, which indefinitely suspended Holly's visitation. A year after the agreed injunction, Holly moved to change physical and legal custody back to her, with Walter having visitation. A hearing was conducted on Walter's contempt petition and on Holly's petition to modify custody. After the hearing, the chancellor denied Holly's petition for modification of custody and child support, held her in contempt, and required her to pay Walter and the guardian ad litem. Holly appealed, alleging the chancellor erred by: (1) not modifying custody; (2) finding her in contempt; (3) not finding Walter in contempt; (4) not awarding her attorneys' fees and assessing her some of Walter's attorneys' fees and the guardian ad litem's fees; (5) excluding evidence preceding the October 2008 custody order; and (6) restricting certain witnesses' testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor on all issues. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the trial court on all issues except the contempt judgment against Holly and the related attorney's fees award. View "McKnight v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

by
The issue before the Supreme Court in this case involved a dispute over custody of B.S. Diana Crosby, the child's maternal grandmother, claimed the Youth Curt erred in awarding custody of B.S. to the child's father, Robert Sims, Jr. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Youth Court. View "In the Interest of B.S., a Minor" on Justia Law

by
Husband appealed the trial court's award of lump-sum alimony, temporary alimony, and interest to the wife. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the chancellor examined all relevant factors in determining lump-sum alimony, and his determination was supported by the record. The chancellor was within his power to enforce the temporary order and continue the obligation of temporary alimony until the divorce was finalized. Furthermore, the chancellor did not err in awarding interest on monies owed to the wife that were more than a year past due. Because the chancellor did not err in any of these determinations, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court in all respects. View "McFarland, Jr. v. McFarland" on Justia Law

by
In a divorce proceeding, the chancery court ordered the father and mother to pay certain specific college expenses which the father argued should include flight lessons associated with the child’s aviation-related major. The chancellor found for the father, held the mother in contempt, and awarded the father attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed. After its review of the matter, in particular the terms of the divorce decree, the Supreme Court found that because the decree required payment for only “meals, tuition, books and room,” and reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the chancery court in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Zweber v. Zweber" on Justia Law

by
The Jackson County Court sitting as Youth Court exercised jurisdiction over two minors following allegations of abuse and neglect. The foster parents of the two minor children subsequently filed adoption proceedings in the Lincoln County Chancery Court. The Mississippi Department of Human Services ("MDHS") sought interlocutory appeal after unsuccessfully challenging the chancery court's jurisdiction to consider the adoption proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Chancery Court had jurisdiction over the adoption proceedings and affirmed the Chancery Court's judgment. View "Mississippi Dept. of Human Svcs. v. Watts" on Justia Law

by
Jonathan and Lea Ann Byrd were married in 1991. They had four children together. The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was the chancellor's financial awards of property division, alimony, and child support. Much of the dispute centered upon a Trust in which Jonathan was a one-third beneficiary and also was a cotrustee. All assets from the Trust will be distributed to Jonathan and his two brothers, Keith, and Barry in September 2014. Lea Ann raised numerous issues on appeal, all relating to the valuation of the marital property, taking into consideration Jonathan's interest in the trust. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the chancellor erred in failing to take into account certain expenses for the children, and whether it was necessary that Jonathan maintain life insurance in order to protect the children in the event of his death. The Court affirmed the chancellor in all other respects. View "Byrd v. Byrd" on Justia Law