I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 2 - CA - 0 1 3 9 3 - CO A GR EGO RY D AI LEY AP P EL LA NT
v. TR ACI E M CB EA TH ( F AI RL EY ) APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 19/ 2012 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. D. NEI L HARRI S S R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: J ACKSON COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : JA M E S N E L S O N S C A R F F II DA VI D N EI L M CCA RTY A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L E E : W E N D Y W A L K E R M A R T IN NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: OR DE R O F CO NT E M P T F OR P AS T
- DUE CH I L D S UP P OR T , AW AR D OF P AS T
- DUE CH I L D S UP P OR T I N T HE AM OUNT OF $ 3 2 , 1 3 0
. 4 6 , P L U S $ 2 , 0 0 0 IN A T T O R N E Y ’S F EE S , AND M ONTHLY CHI LD- S UPP ORT PA Y M E N T S I N C R E A SE D T O $450 DI S P OS I T I ON: AF F I RMED I N P AR T ; RE VE RS E D AND R E M A N D E D I N PA R T - 11/ 25/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. BA RNE S , J . , F OR THE COURT : ¶1
. Tr a c i e M c Bea th Fa i r l e y a nd Gr e go ry D a i l e y ha d a chi l d bor n outof w edl ock on N o v em b er 2 5 , 1 9 9 2
. O n M ay 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 , T rac ie f il ed a pe ti ti o n for cu stod y an d othe r reli ef. T he part i es ent er ed i nt o a n a gr eed or deron Sept ember6, 2001, w her ei n Tr aci e w as gr ant ed pr i m ary physi cal an d l egal cus t ody of the chi l d, and G r egory w as or der ed t o pay $334 per
m onth i n chi l d s up po rt(r et r oact i ve t o A ugus t2, 2001) , $1, 750 i n back c hi l d s uppor t , and

### 2

one- hal f of the chi l d’ s r eas onabl e medi cal expens es notcover ed by i ns ur ance . ¶2. H ow ever , G r egory beca m e extr emel y del i nquent on the or der ed chi l d supp ort , and T r aci e f i l ed a pe t i t i on f

orm odi f i cat i on and cont empt on D ece m ber5, 2005, f ol l ow ed by an amended pet i t i on f

orm odi f i cat i on and cont emptf

i l ed on J une 19, 2006. A bench w arr ant
w as al s o i s s ued f

orG r egory atthatt i m e. A thi r d amended pet i t i on f orm odi f i cat i on and cont empt w as f

i l ed by Tra ci e on N ovember12, 2009. ¶3
. O n F ebrua r y 5 , 20 10 , G r e go ry was f ou nd i n c on t e mpta nd or de r e d t o p a y a pur ge amount of

$5, 000, and the cha ncery courtr es et“ thi s mat t er ” f ora l at erda t e. O n A pr i l 21, 2 0 1 0 , th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt fo u n d G re g o ry in “ w ill fu l, w a n to n [,] a n d c o n tu m a c io u s c o n tem p t” of the 2001 or der , s t at i ng: [ G r egory] neverpays hi s supporton t i m e. H e has onl y pai d hi s s uppor tw hen h e h as b ee n su m m o n ed to [c] o u rt . H e h as fa il ed to foll o w [ U n if o rm C h an ce ry C o u rt ] R u le 8.06 an d g ive h is ch an g e o f ad d ress to th e [c] o u rt [, ] an d the [c]ou rt f i n d s th a th e h a s o n n u me r o u s o c c a s i o n s a v o i d e d p r o c e s s a l th o u g h h e h a s c o me t o courtw hen s erved. H e has on l y paid[ , ] i n the l as tni ne yea r s , $9, 000. 00 t ow ar ds the s uppor tof

thi s now 17 yearol d chi l d. T he supportamount thathe w as or der ed t o pay i n t he am ountof $334. 00 a mont h cert ai nl y i s a meager amount t o s uppor ta 17 year old chi l d. T he mat t erof r ai s i ng s uppor ti s not b e fo re th e [c]o u rt. T h e c h a n c e llo r, th e re fo re , g ra n ted T ra c ie a ju d g m e n t o f $ 3 5 ,6 9 5 ($ 2 7 ,4 8 6 in p a st c h ild
su p p o rt, $ 7 ,0 0 0 in a tto rn e y ’s f e e s, $ 9 0 0 in in v e stig a tiv e fe e s to lo c a te G re g o ry , an d $ 3 0 9 in
cou rtcost s) , pl us ei gh tpercent i nter estfr om the d at e of the o rder
. T he ch ancery co urtal so
o rd e re d G re g o ry in c a rc e ra ted u n til h e p a id a p u rg e a m o u n t o f $ 1 1 ,8 9 8 .3 3 , w h ich h e p ro m p tly p aid. G reg ory w as ordered t o p ay an add i t i on al $2 00 on t op of hi s m on thly chi l d-supp o rt payment s of

$334 t o r educe the r emai ni ng arr ear age.

### 3

¶ 4
. O n Ju n e 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , T ra c ie file d a n o th e r p e titio n fo r m o d if ic a tio n a n d c o n tem p t,
as s ert i ng thats i nce the f i r s tcont empt proc eedi ng a yearpri or , G r egory had onl y pai d $1, 600 in c h ild su p p o rt, an d h e h a d p a id n o th in g to w a rd s th e a rre a ra g e . S h e a lso c laim e d th a t a
m od i fi cat i on of chi l d sup po rtw as w arr anted du e t o a m at eri al chan ge in ci rcum st ances,
s peci f i cal l y t he i ncr eas ed nee ds of the chi l d, s uch as “col l ege e xpens es , cari ns ur ance , and
e x tr a c u rr ic u la r a c tiv itie s .” ¶5. A hear i ng on the pet i t i on w as he l d A pr i l 19, 2012. T r aci e’ s couns el as s ert ed a m ot i on to co m p el disco v ery , claim ing that w h en sh e h ad fina ll y rec eive d a n a n sw er fro m G reg o ry
a w eek p ri or t o the heari ng , t here w as no p roper docu m entat i on (t ax returns, check stub s, et c. ) i ncl uded. She al s o cl ai m ed thatG r egory had purpos el y el uded i nves t i gat or s , gi vi ng them fa l s e i nf

or m at i on, and thathe w as hi di ng as s et s . G regory fai l ed t o appea ratt he hear i ng. H i s couns el , how ever , w as present and ac know l edged thatG r egory had notf i l ed t ax r eturns forthe l as ts even ye ar s . G r egory’ s couns el compl ai ned thatcouns el oppos i t e had notbeen c om m uni cat i ng w i th hi m and thathe had be en unabl e t o depos e Tra ci e, even though he h ad b een trying form on ths. ¶6
. A s a r es ul t , b oth pa r t i e s r e qu e s t e d a c on t i nu a nc e , b utt he cha ncel l ordeni ed t he
m o ti o n s an d p roc ee d ed w ith the h eari ng , despit e the p rotestati o n s b y h is co u n sel th at G reg o ry
w as notpr es ent . T r aci e t es t i f i ed atthe hea r i ng thatan i ncr eas e i n chi l d s uppor tw as neede d beca us e the chi l d w as now i n col l ege, and ther e had be en no i ncr eas e i n chi l d s uppor ts i nce 2001. A tthe conc l us i on o f T ra ci e’ s t es t i m ony ( s i nce G r egory had f ai l ed t o m ake a n appea r ance ) , the cha ncel l ori s s ued a benc h rul i ng, hol di ng G r egory i n cont empt and or der i ng

### Th e jud gment of in carcerationwas stay ed fo r thirtyday s. 1 

### It is not c le ar

from t he r ec ord why the m odif

ie d amount

of m onthly chi ld s upport 2 

### ($450) in the July 24, 2012 orde r was de cr ea se d f rom the am ount indi cate d by thecourt at theApri l2 01 2 he ari ng( $5 38 )
. Re gar dl e s s , them onthly c hi l d- s up po rt p aym e nt s wer e increasedfrom $ 33 4 to $4 50 , andit is from th at mod ificationthat G rego ry ap peals. 4 G r egory i ncar cer at ed unt i l he pai d a pur ge amountof $15, 000. T he chanc el l ori ndi cat ed that

1 the modi f

i ed mont hl y chi l d- s uppor tpaymentw oul d be i ncr eas ed t o $583, and he r educe d G regor y’ s a ddi t i onal mont hl y a r r ear age obl i gat i on f r om $200 t o $100. G r egory w as al so ordered t o p ay o ne-hal f of the ch i l d’s col l ege ex pen ses. ¶ 7 . T h e fin a l ju d g m e n t w a s e n ter e d o n Ju ly 2 4 , 2 0 1 2
. T h e o rd e r n o ted th a t, as o f th e A p ril 1 9 , 2 0 1 2 h e a rin g , G re g o ry w a s $ 2 4 ,1 1 4 .4 6 (in c lu d in g in ter e st) in a rre a rs f o r c h ild su p p o rt. T he cha ncel l orf

ound: “[ G r egory] now ow es an addi t i onal $8, 016 i n chi l d supp ort [ , ] pl us $2, 000 i n att orney f

ees [
. ] ” The chanc el l oraw ar ded Tra ci e an a ddi t i on al j udgm entof $ 1 0 ,0 1 6 , p lu s in ter e st o f tw o an d o n e -h a lf p e rc e n t. G re g o ry w a s o rd e re d in c a rc e ra ted u n til h e p aid th e p u rge a m o u n t of $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 , a n d h e w as also o rde red to p ay o n e-h alf of the ch il d ’s col l ege e xpens es . H ow ever , devi at i ng f r om the court ’ s bench rul i ng , the or derent er ed by the c h an ce ll o r on ly inc rea sed G reg o ry’s m o n thly ch il d -sup p o rtp ay m en t t o $ 4 5 0
. G reg o ry 2
n o w a p p e a ls th e ch a n c e ry co u rt’s Ju ly 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 o rd e r, sp e c ifica lly th e in c re a se in m o n th ly
c h ild su p p o rt fro m $ 3 3 4 to $ 4 5 0 a n d th e a w a rd o f a tto rn e y ’s f e e s to T ra c ie; h e d o e s n o t, h o w e v e r, ch a llen g e th e a rre a ra g e o f c h ild su p p o rt a n d th e fin d in g o f c o n tem p t. ¶8. Fi ndi ng t hat t he chan cel l or f ai l ed t o m ake s peci f

i c f i ndi ngs of

f actt o s uppor t the
m odi f i cat i on of

chi l d s uppor tand the devi at i on fr om st atut ory gui del i nes , w e r ever s e and

### 5

rem an d for fu rth er p roc ee d ing s co n sist en t w ith this op in io n . A s to the issue o f att o rne y ’s f ees , w e f i nd n o abu se of

di s cr et i on i n the aw ar d of att orney’ s f

ees t o T r aci e bas ed on the
c o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g o f c o n t e mp ta n d a f

f i r m th e j u d g me n ti n p a r to n th i s g r o u n d
. Ho we v e r , we d e c lin e to g ra n t T ra c ie’ s re q u e st fo r a tto rn e y ’s f e e s o n a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he c hancery court ’ s deni al of a m ot i on f

or a cont i nuan ce was an a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. ¶9. G r egory’ s couns el m ade an appear ance on hi s beh al f at the A pr i l 19, 2012 hear i ng, evi dent l y expec t i ng thatthe cha ncery courtw as onl y goi ng t o addr es s the mot i ons f or di s covery a nd gr antthe part i es ’ m ot i ons f ora cont i nuance . H ow ever , the cha ncel l orr ef us ed t o cont i nue the pr ocee di ngs and deni ed bot h par t i es ’ m ot i ons . A l though couns el ar gued that G r egory w as l ocat ed thr ee hour s aw ay i n M adi s on, M i s s i s s i ppi , as w er e the att orney’ s f i l es f orthe ca s e, the chanc el l ora dvi s ed the part i es t o pr epar e f ortr i al and t o att empt t o r eac h an agr eement . H e admoni s hed: I ’ m goi ng t o cont i nue w i th t he cas e and you have no author i ty t o r el eas e your c lie n t. I h a v e th a t tr o u b le in o th e rc a s e s a n d it’ s m y p o lic y to g o fo rw a rd
. . .

. A nd I ’ m notgoi ng t o pl ay games w i th di s covery. . . . Y ’ al l s houl d have co o p era ted w ith ea ch o ther. I’ m g o ing to try the c ase , so ju st g e t y o u r stu ff r eady.

. . . . N ow , w hatI w i l l do i s gi ve y’ al l a cha nce t o vi s i tt o s ee i f you can r es ol ve the m att er. A nd itm ay be t hatyou can t al k t o yourcl i entby phone. I w i l l not t ol er at e f r om ei therone of

you al l the f

ai l ur e t o cooper at e and di s cus s a ca s e. ¶10. O n appea l , G r egory ar gues that the chanc el l or ’ s deni al of a cont i nuance , w hi ch gave

### We f ind Owensv. Thomae , 759 So. 2d 1117 ( Mis s. 1999) , thec as e c it ed by Gr egor y 3 

### in sup po rt of the continuan ce, disting uish able as it con cerneda plaintiff’s Mississipp i Ru le of Ci vilProc edur e 56( f) re ques t f or a continuanceto obt ain furthe r affidavi ts to ref utea motion f or s umm ar

y judgm ent . Suc h ar e not t he f ac ts of this ca se . 6 hi s couns el onl y s event een mi nut es t o pr epar e f ortr i al , w as “an i nher entabuse of di s cr et i on”
a n d th a t h e w a s “ a m b u sh e d ” a n d “ u n a b le to d e fe n d h im se lf.” A c h a n c e llo r’s d e c isio n to d e n y a m o tio n fo r a c o n tin u a n c e is re v ie w e d fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S ize m o re v . P ick e tt , 76 So. 3d 788, 794 ( ¶14) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2011) ( ci t i ng R obi ns on v. B r ow n, 58 So. 3d 38, 42 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) )
. A bs enta f i ndi ng of pr ej udi ce, w e w i l l notr ever s e the deni al
o f a c o n tin u a n c e . R obi ns on , 5 8 S o . 3 d at 42 (¶1 0 ). 3 ¶11. W hi l e the chanc el l or ’ s deci s i on t o pr ocee d w i th the hear i ng w i thout G r egory pr es ent
m ay appea rhar s h, w e f i nd tha ti tw a s no ta n a bu s e of di s c r e t i on . G r e go ry a nd hi s c ou ns el
s houl d have be en pr epar ed f orthe p ossi bi l i ty thatthe mot i ons f ora cont i nuance w oul d be d e n ied
. G reg o ry w as o b v iou sly aw are of th e h ea ri n g , as his co u n sel w as in att en d a n c e to
r epr es enthi m . G r egory does notcont end thathe w as unabl e to at t end the hear i ng, and he knew thathe ow ed the pr i orj udgm entt o T r aci e and thatthe hea r i ng ha d be en s chedul ed f or
se v e ra l m o n th s. F u rth e rm o re , the re c o rd s h o w s th a t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt h a d p re v io u sly gr ant ed a c ont i nuance on A ugus t17, 2011, and the chanc el l ornot ed atthe hear i ng thatt he
cas e had be en s ets i nce February 21, 2011. ¶1 2
. C o n seq u en tl y , w e find a n y p re ju d ice s u ffe re d b y G reg o ry d u e to th e ch an ce ll o r’s d e c isio n to p ro c e e d w ith th e h e a rin g w a s o f G re g o ry ’s o w n m a k in g , an d th e c h a n c e llo r d id notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng the mot i ons f ora cont i nuance .

### We not e that , ha d Gre gory wi she d, hecoul d havefi le d a pos t- judg ment motion 4 

### under Mis si ss ippiRuleof Ci vilProce dure52(a) , whic h state s: “In allactions tri ed upon the facts with out a jurythe co urt may , and shall u po n the requ es t of

any party to t

he s uit or wh en requiredbythese ru les, find thefac tsspe ciall y and state se

paratel y it s conc lus ionsof law t hereon and j udgme nt s hal l beent er ed a cc ordingly. ” ( Empha si s a dded)
. 7 I I . W het her t he chancery c ourt ’ s f ai l ure t o m ake s peci f

i c f i ndi ngs of f act regar di ng t he m odi f i cat i on of

chi l d support , w hi ch devi at ed fr o m th e sta tu to r y g u id e lin e s, w a r r a n ts r e v e r sa l. ¶13. G r egory ar gues thatt he chanc el l or ’ s m odi f i cat i on of chi l d s uppor ts houl d be r ever s ed and r emanded beca us e the chanc el l orf ai l ed t o m ake s peci f

i c f i ndi ngs of

f actas t o w hy t he i ncrease i n G regory’s chil d -sup p o rtob l i gati on w as i n ex cess of the st atutory g uidel i nes. 4 M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o ta te d se c tio n 4 3 -1 9 -1 0 1 (1 ) (S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ) e sta b lish e s a re b u ttab le pr es um pt i on thatw her e one c hi l d i s due support , the aw ar d of chi l d s uppor ts houl d be fou rt ee n p erc en t of th e n o n cu stod ial p are n t’ s ad just ed g ross i n co m e. H o w ev er, “[ a] ch an ce ry
c o u rt m a y d e v iate fro m th e sta tu to ry g u id e lin e s if it m a k e s ‘a n o n -th e -re c o rd fin d in g th a t it
w oul d be unj us tori nappr opr i at e t o appl y the gui del i nes i n the i ns t antcas e. ’ ” C ur r y v. Fr az i er , 119 So. 3d 362, 366 ( ¶15) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2013) ( quot i ng G ar ci a v. G ar ci a, 97 So. 3d 109, 112 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2012))
. I f t her e i s “a s ubs t ant i al orm at er i al change i n the
c irc u m sta n c e s o f o n e o r m o re o f th e in ter e ste d p a rties : th e fa th e r, th e m o th e r, an d th e c h ild
orchi l dr en, ar i s i ng s ubs equentt o t he entry of the decr ee t o be m odi f i ed, ” a chanc el l orm ay
m o d if y c h ild s u p p o rt . Id
. ¶ 1 4
. In th e p re se n t c a se , th e a m o u n t o f c h ild su p p o rt a w a rd e d ($ 4 5 0 ) b y th e c h a n c e llo r in the J ul y 24, 2012 or derw as si gni f i cant l y gr eat erthan f

our t een pe r centof

G r egory’ s r eport ed

### Although thetria l c ourt st at ed that

Gre go ry did not fi lea Rul e 8. 05 financ ia l 5 

### st at em ent , the r ec ord s hows that a rudimen tary Rule8.05 s tate me nt wa s provide d as an exh ibit. 8 m onthl y gr os s i ncome of $1, 505. Y etnei therthe cha ncel l or ’ s bench rul i ng northe f i nal
o rde r co n tai n ed an y sp ec if ic fi n d ing s o f fact as to w h y G reg o ry’s m o n thly c h il d -sup p o rt obl i gat i on w as i ncr eas ed. A tthe hea r i ng, the cha ncel l ors i m pl y s ai d: T H E C O U R T : W h a t a mo u n t o f s u p p o r ti s h e p a y i n g n o w? W hat ’ s the amountperm onth? [T R A C IE ’S C O U N S E L ]: T h re e h u n d re d a n d th irty -fo u r w h e n h e p a y s it. T H E C O U R T : A ll rig h t. H is c h ild su p p o rt w ill b e in c re a se d to [$ ]58 3 a m o n th fro m th a t am o u n t. O therthan cl ari fyi ng t hatthi s amount di d noti ncl ude $100 i n arr ear age pa ym ent s , t he
c h a n c e ry c o u rt m a d e n o fin d in g s o f fa c t re g a rd in g th e m o d ifica tio n . A d d iti o n a lly , the Ju ly 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 fi n al ord er o n ly stated : “A t th e tri al, [G reg o ry] did n o t f il e [a U n if

o rm C h an ce ry C our tR ul e 8. 05 fi nanci al st at ement ]
. C hi l d s upporti s i ncr eas ed t o $450. 00 perm onth and [ G r egory] i s t o pay [ one- hal f ] of al l col l ege e xpens es t o i ncl ude tui t i on, books [ , ] and r oom
a n d b o a rd if

n e c e s s a ry .” 5 ¶15. I n K l ei n v. McInt yre , 9 6 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 2 , 12 5 8 (¶2 0 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ), this C o u rt
re v e rse d a m o d ifica tio n o f c h ild su p p o rt d u e to th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt’s f a ilu re to m a k e sp e c ific f i ndi ngs of

f acta s t o w hy the m odi f i ed payment s w er e l ow erthan the s t atut ory gu i deli nes
se t fo rth in s e c tio n 4 3 -1 9 -1 0 1 . W e c o n c lu d e d : “ W ith o u t su c h fin d in g s, th is C o u rt is u n a b le t o det erm i ne w hetherthe modi f i cat i on of chi l d s uppor ti s j us t i f i ed. ” Id .; s ee al

s o Yelver t on

### 9

v. Yelver t on , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 9 , 2 7 -28 (¶¶ 1 3 -15 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ) (fi n d ing that ch an ce ry c o u rt ’s f ai l ur e t o m ake s peci f

i c f i ndi ngs f ori t s devi at i on f

r om the st atut ory gui del i nes i n aw ar di ng ch il d su p p o rtw arran ted re v ersa l)
. ¶16. “W hen a c hance l l orm akes a rul i ng w i thouts peci f i c f i ndi ngs of

f actand a pa r ty r ai s es the i s s ue of

the amount of

c hi l d s uppor ta w ar ded, thi s C our tw i l l s end the i s s ue bac k t o t he l ow ercourtf

orthe mandat ory s peci f

i c f i ndi ngs of

f actas t o w hy the chanc el l orde vi at ed f r om the gui del i nes . ” Mo rr is v . Mo rr is , 5 So. 3d 476, 495 ( ¶47) (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2008) ( quot i ng McG ehee v. U

pchur ch , 733 So. 2d 364, 371 ( ¶37) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 1999) )
. H er e, s i nce the chanc el l orpr ovi ded n o fi nd i ngs of f act( ei theratthe hea r i ng ori n the or der ) as t o w hy t he ch il d -sup p o rtaw ard d ev iat ed from the s tatu tory g u idelines o f sec ti o n 4 3 -1 9 -1 0 1 , w e a re unabl e t o det erm i ne f

r om the r ecor d w hatf

act or s the chanc ery c our tcons i der ed i n m odi f yi ng G r egory’ s chi l d- s uppor tob l i gati on. A ccor di ngl y, w e ar e compel l ed t o r ever s e the chancel l or ’ s or derm odi f yi ng chi l d s uppor tand r emand t he ca s e t o the cha ncery courtf or f ur therf i ndi ngs on t he i s s ue of

the chi l d- s uppor tm odi f i cat i on. III . W het her t he chancel l or err ed i n aw ard i n g a tt orn ey’s f ees t o T raci e. ¶17. G r egory cl ai m s that the aw ar d of att orney’ s f ees t o T r aci e w as arbi tr ary and thatt he chanc el l orf

ai l ed t o addr es s the f

act or s s etf

or th i n McKee v . McKee , 418 So. 2d 764, 767 ( M i s s . 1982)
. H ow ever , t hi s w as notsi m pl y a chi l d- s uppor tm odi f i cat i on pr ocee di ng; i tw as al s o a cont empt pr ocee di ng. A s ours upr eme cour tr ece nt l y not ed: “A party w ho i ncur s l egal f ees as the r es ul tof anot her ’ s conductm ay be aw arded f

ees w i thoutr egar d t o need. ” B el lon Mis s is s i ppiFam i l

y Law § 1 0
. 0 3 [1]
. “T h ere h av e b ee n a n u m b er o f p ri o r de cisi o n s u p h o lding the a w ard

### 10

o f a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s to o n e p a rty w h e re th e o th e r p a rt y h a s b e e n fo u n d to b e in c o n tem p t o f c o u rt o r w h e re th a t p a rty ’s a c tio n s c a u se d a d d iti o n a l leg a l fe e s to be i ncurr ed. ” C hes ney v . C hes ney, 8 4 9 S o . 2 d 8 6 0 , 8 6 3 (¶ 1 2 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 2 ). H u se th v . H

u se th , 1 3 5 S o . 3 d 8 4 6 , 8 6 0 (¶ 4 5 ) (M iss . 2 0 1 4 ). “[A ]tto rn e y s’ f e e s a re p ro p e rly
as s es s ed aga i ns ta party f ound t o be i n cont empt . ” D i cke rs on v. D i cke rs on , 34 So. 3d 637, 649 ( ¶47) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2010) ( ci t i ng Mo u n t v. Mo u n t, 624 So
. 2d 10 01 , 10 0 5 (M is s. 1 9 9 3 ))
. ¶ 1 8
. G re g o ry h a s c o n sis ten tly d e fie d th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt’s o rd e r th a t h e p a y c h ild su p p o rt,
caus i ng T r aci e an d her att orney t o expend t i m e and money t o enf or ce the 2001 agr eement thro u g h co n tem p t pro ce ed ing s. C o n seq u en tl y , w e find n o erro r i n the chan ce ry c o u rt ’s aw ard of att orney’ s f

ees t o T r aci e and a f

f i r m the j udgm enti n parton thi s i s s ue. IV . W h e th e r T r a c ie s h o u ld b e a w a r d e d a tto r n e y ’s fe e s o n a p p e a l. ¶19
. T raci e argues t hat s he is enti tl ed to $ 5 , 0 0 0 in att o rne y ’s fee s o n ap peal becau se G r egory’ s cl ai m i s f

r i vol ous underR ul e 38 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e,
w hi ch pr ovi des : “I n a ci vi l cas e i f t he Supre m e C our tor C our tof A ppeal s s hal l det erm i ne thatan ap peal i s f

r i vol ous , i ts hal l aw ar d j us tdamages and s i ngl e ordoubl e cos t s t o t he appel l ee. ” T he com m entt o R ul e 38 expl ai ns that“damages t o be aw ar ded may i ncl ude att orneys ’ fe es and ot herexpens es i ncurr ed by an appel l ee. ” T he eval uat i on of w hetheran appea l i s f

r i vol ous underR ul e 38 i s conduct ed “us i ng t he sa m e s t andar d thatappl i es under R ul e 11 of

the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. ” B al i us v. G ai nes , 95 S o. 3d 730, 732 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . C t . A pp . 2 012) ( ci t i ng H arris v. H

arris, 98 8 S o. 2d 37 6, 38 0 (¶16 ) ( M i ss. 2008) )
. “ A ccor di ngl y, a n a ppeal i s f r i vol ous unde rR ul e 38 w her e the appe l l anthas no hope

### 11

of s ucce s s . ” I

d. Si nce w e have concl uded thatG r egory has br oughta val i d i s s ue on appe al thatw arr ant s r ever s al , t ot al r ei m bur s ementof T r aci e’ s att orney’ s f

ees w oul d notbe mer i t ed on appea l underR ul e 38. ¶20. T r aci e al t ernat i vel y ar gues s he i s ent i t l ed t o att orney’ s f ees i n the amount of

$1, 000,
one- hal f of w hatshe w as aw ar ded bel ow . G ener al l y, att orney’ s f ees on appea l ar e aw ar ded “i n the amountof

one- hal f

of w hatw as aw ar ded i n the l ow ercourt . ” M akam s on v. Makam s on , 928 So. 2d 218, 222 ( ¶18) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) ( ci t i ng Monr oe v. Monr oe, 745 S o . 2 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 3 (¶ 1 7 ) (M iss . 1 9 9 9 )). H o w e v e r, “ [a]tto rn e y ’s fe e s a re b a se d u p o n n e c e ss ity
r atherthan ent i t l ement . ” I d. ¶21. I n Parke rv . B l i ven , 5 9 S o . 3 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 3 (¶ 2 4 ) ( M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 0 ), this C o u rt
aw ar ded appe l l at e at t orney’ s fe es w hen “the cha ncel l orf ound thatB l i ven w as ent i t l ed t o an
aw ar d of a t t orney’ s f

ees be caus e of

Par ker ’ s cont empt and mi s conduct
. ” See al s o W ebs t er
v . W ebs t er , 1 7 S o . 3 d 6 0 2 , 6 1 0 (¶2 1 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) (aw ard ing o n e-h alf att o rne y ’s f ees on appea l w i thoutany di s cus s i on as t o w hetheri nabi l i ty t o pay ora f i ndi ng of cont empt
w as the r eas on f

ort he aw ar d)
. B ut , i n McD o n a ld v . M cD o n a ld , 69 S o. 3d 61 , 68 (¶17) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2011) , w e dec l i ned t o aw ar d one- hal f of the att orney’ s f

ees on appea l beca us e the chanc el l ors peci f

i cal l y s t at ed thatthe att orney’ s f ees w er e bei ng aw ar ded due t o the f i ndi ng
o f co n temp t a n d d e fe n d a n t’ s fa ilu re to p a y th e p la in tif f, notthe plai nt i

f f’s i nabi l i t

y to pay . ¶22. H er e, ther e w as no di s cus s i on by the chanc el l or at the 2012 hear i ng or i n the J ul y 24, 2 0 1 2 o rd e r re g a rd in g T ra c ie’ s in a b ili ty to p a y h e r a tto rn e y ’s f e e s. H o w e v e r, in th e A p ril 2010 or der , the cha ncel l orh ad aw arded Tr aci e $7, 000 i n att orney’ s f ees “due t o t he

### 12

egr egi ous conductof

t he [ d] ef endant
. ” F ur therm or e, i n T r aci e’ s J ul y 21, 2011 pet i t i on f or
m odi f i cat i on a nd c ont empt , s he s peci f i cal l y a r gued thata t t orney’ s f ees s houl d be aw ar ded

“ d u e t o th e [ r ] e s p o n d e n t ’ s wi l l f u l r e f u s a l t o s u p p o r th i s c h i l d
. ” Th e r e f o r e , we mu s ta s s u me that th e ch an ce ll o r aw ard ed att o rne y ’s f ee s ba sed on his f

ind ing of co n tem p t and G reg o ry’s obs t i nat e r ef

us al t o pa y c hi l d s uppor t ; notbas ed on Tra ci e’ s i nabi l i ty t o pay. I n the pr es ent appea l , G regory h as notchal l enged the or derof cont empt , butr atherthe modi f i cat i on of chi l d s uppor t ; ther ef

or e, the r eas on f

orw hi ch att orney’ s f

ees w er e gr ant ed i s notati s s ue on
a p p e a l. ¶ 2 3
. A c c o rd in g ly , w e d e c lin e to a w a rd T ra c ie a tto rn e y ’s f e e s o n a p p e a l. ¶ 2 4
. TH E J UDG M ENT OF THE CH ANC ERY CO URT OF J ACK S ON CO UNTY I S AF F I RMED I N P AR T , AN D R E VE RS E D A ND RE M AN DE D I N P AR T F OR F UR T HER P RO CE E DI NG S CO NS I S T E NT W I T H T HI S OP I NI ON . AL L CO S T S OF THI S APP EAL ARE ASS ES S ED TO TH E APP ELLANT. LEE, C. J . , I RVI NG AN D G RI FF I S , P. J J . , I S HEE, RO BERTS , M AXW ELL, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR. CARLT ON, J . , DI S S EN TS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.