I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 1 8 5 2 - S CT J AMESB. YEL VERTON
v. RHON DA H. YEL VERTON
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 05/ 2008 TR I A L J U D G E: H O N . CA RT ER O . BI SE COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CHANCERY COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: M I CHAEL J AM ES M ALOUF, J R M E L I S S A ANN MAL OUF AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : DAMON S CO T T GI BS ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS DI S P OSI TI ON: AFF I RM ED I N PART ; REVE RS ED I N PART A N D R E M A N D E D - 02/ 04/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E G R A V E S, P . J. , L A M A R A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . Thi s i s a n a pp e a l o f a d i vo r c e j ud gmen te nt e r e d on r e mand f r om t hi s C our t . T he
o rig in a l ju d g m e n t w a s re v e rse d in p a rt d u e to e rro rs in c a lc u latin g p e rio d ic a lim o n y , ch ild
s uppor t , and t he val uat i on of a m ar i t al ass et , nam el y, the hus band’ s cardeal er s hi p. Fi ndi ng thatthe c hance l l orerr ed i n f ai l i ng t o conducta hea r i ng, i n f ai l i ng t o r ece i ve and c ons i der evi dence of t he par t i es ’ r es pect i ve f i nanci al ci r cumst ance s up t o the t i m e of r emand w hen d e ter m in in g p e rio d ic a lim o n y a n d c h ild su p p o rt , a n d in fa ili n g to re c e iv e a n d e v a lu a te

### 2

evi dence of

the val ue of

appel l ant ’ s i nt er es ti n Y el vert on I m por t s , w e r ever s e the j udgm ent in p a rta n d re m a n d th e c a s e fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory ¶2. O n F ebruary 18, 2002, R honda f i l ed f ordi vor ce f

r om J ames ( “J i m ”) Y el vert on on the gr ound of habi tual cruel and i nhum an tr eatm enti n t he C hance ry C our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof

H arr i s on C ounty. T he part i es t empora r i l y r econc i l ed and boughtw hati s r ef err ed t o as “the M agnol i a pr operty” in D ece m ber2002. T her eaf t er , R honda dec i ded t o pr ocee d
w i th the di vor ce, and on M ar ch 13, 2003, the chanc el l ore nt er ed a or derr equi r i ng J i m t o pay $4, 000 perm onth i n t empora ry chi l d s uppor ta nd $2, 500 perm onth i n t empora ry al i m ony. ¶3. T he tr i al t ook pl ace over s ever al days i n N ovember 2003 and J anuary 2004, and the
c h a n c e llo r e n ter e d h is fin a l ju d g m e n t o n A p ril 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 . R h o n d a w a s g iv e n cu sto d y o f th e ir tw o m in o r c h ild re n , an d Jim w a s o rd e re d to p a y $ 2 ,5 0 0 p e r m o n th in c h ild su p p o rt. R egar di ng the mar i t al pr operty, the cha ncel l oror der ed thatthe mar i t al dom i ci l e and the M agnol i a pr operty be s ol d and the pr ocee ds di vi ded equa l l y betw een the par t i es . J i m w as a llo w e d to re tain h is fo rty -e ig h t p e rc e n t o w n e rsh ip in ter e st in h is c a r d e a ler sh ip , Jim Y e lv e rto n Im p o rts, In c ., b u t w a s o rd e re d to p a y R h o n d a $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 in lu m p -su m a lim o n y in
m i ni m um m onthl y i ns t al l m ent s of $5, 000 pe rmont h. R honda al s o w as aw ar ded $2, 500 per
m onth i n per i odi c al i m ony pl us tw enty- f i ve per centof

J i m ’ s annual i ncome over$150, 000. F in a lly , J im w a s re q u ir e d to p a y R h o n d a ’s a tto rn e y fe e s a n d c o u rtc o s ts . ¶4 . Jim a lso w a s fo u n d in c o n tem p t for fail u re to p ay the tem p o rary ali m o n y an d c h ild
su p p o rt a n d w a s o rd e re d to p a y th e arr e a ra g e w ith in six ty d a y s o f th e fin a l j u d g m e n t. S h o rtly after th e jud g m en t w as e n tered , R h o n d a fil ed an o ther c o n tem p t acti o n b ase d o n Jim ’s

### 3

cont i nued f

ai l ur e t o pay. W hi l e R honda had s ol d the mar i t al hom e and moved i nt o an apartm entas or der ed by the court , J i m w as l i vi ng atthe M agno l i a pr operty w i th hi s new w i f e. Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the cha ncel l orf ound J i m i n “w i l l f

ul contum aci ous cont empt . ” ¶5 . Jim a p p ea led, raisi n g issue s reg ard ing lum p -sum ali m o n y , p e rio d ic a lim o n y , ch ild
s uppor t , and att orney’ s f ees , buthe di d nota ppeal the cus t ody a w ar d orthe cont empti s s ue. T h e c a se w a s a ss ig n e d to th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, w h ic h a ff irm e d th e ju d g m e n t in to to . Y elverton v. Y

elverton , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d 4 8 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). T h is C o u rtg ran ted J im ’s p eti ti o n for w ri t o f certi o rari, reve rsed th e d ec isi o n s o f th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls an d the c h an ce ry c o u rt , a n d re m a n d e d t h e m a tte r w ith in s tru c tio n s . Y elverton v. Y

elverton , 961 So. 2d 19 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ) ( Y

e lv e r ton I

) . Thes e i ns truct i ons r equi r ed the cha ncery courtt o: ( 1) r evi s i tthe i s s ue of lump- s um al i m ony, m aki ng s peci f i c f i ndi ngs of

f actand conc l us i ons of l aw cons i s t entw i th Fer

guson v. Fer

guson , 639 So. 2d 921 ( M i s s . 1994) ; ( 2) r eeva l uat e J i m ’ s net
w o rth ; ( 3 ) m ak e sp ec if

ic, on -th e-rec o rd find ing s to justi fy a n y d ev iat ion from the s tatu tory ch il d su p p o rtg u idelines ; ( 4 ) reev alua te th e a w ard o f pe ri o d ic ali m o n y ; ( 5 ) rev alue Jim ’s in ter e st in the au to m o b ile d e a ler sh ip w ith o u t i n c lu d in g th e v a lu e o f g o o d w ill ; an d (6 ) re v isit th e iss u e o f a tto rn e y ’s fe e s sh o u ld th e c h a n c e llo r d e e m n e c e s s a ry . Y e lv e r ton I, 961 So. 2d 19. ¶6. T hi s C our t ’ s m andat e i s s ued A ugus t16, 2007. O n M ar ch 5, 2008, w i thout conduct i ng a h e a rin g , the c h a n c e llo r e n ter e d a s e v e n tee n -p a g e ju d g m e n t. T h e ju d g m e n t re d u c e d c h ild
s uppor tf r om $2, 500 perm onth t o $2, 400 perm onth, keptl um p- s um ali m ony t he s ame at $250, 000 butw i thouta mi ni m um mont hl y pa ym ent , r educe d per i odi c al i m ony f r om $2, 500 t o $2, 000 perm onth, and kep tint actthe or i gi nal aw ar d of att orney’ s f

ees t o R honda. T he

### 4

chanc el l orbas ed hi s deci s i on on t es t i m ony and exhi bi t s r ece i ved att he hea r i ngs conduct ed pr i ort o the or i gi nal 2004 j udgm ent . H e not ed thats hor t l y af t erthe ca s e w as r emanded, the part i es had i nf

orm ed the courtthatthey w er e i n s ett l ementnegot i at i ons , butthatthese
n e g o tia tio n s h a d b ro k e n d o w n . ¶7 . Jim fi led a m o ti o n for r ec o n side rati o n , clai m ing that sinc e the o ri g inal jud g m en t, there had bee n subst ant i al and mat er i al change s i n ci r cumst ance s r equi r i ng thatthe cha ncel l or e lim in a te e n tirely h is a lim o n y an d ch ild su p p o rt o b lig a tio n s. Jim a rg u e d th a t th e c o u rt sh o u ld hav e held an ev i den t i ary heari ng t o reevaluat e his w orth an d earni ng capac i ty. H e al so a r g u e d th a tc i r c u ms t a n c e s r e q u i r e d a c h a n g e i n th e l e g a l a n d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f h i s two m i norc hi l dr en. Rhonda count er ed thatthe pr operpr ocedur e w as f orJ i m t o f

i l e a pe t i t i on f

or m odi f i cat i on. ¶8 . O n A ugus t5, 2008, t he cha ncel l ori s s ued an or derdenyi ng t he mot i on f or re c o n sid e ra tio n . T h e c h a n c e llo r d id n o t g iv e sp e c ific r e a so n s fo r d e n ial, b u t n o ted in h is
or derthatthe courth ad setthe m at t erf orconf er ence on J ul y 22, 2008, and the part i es had fa ile d to a p p e a r. ¶ 9 . F o llo w in g d e n ia l o f th e m o tio n fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n , the c h a n c e llo r a llo w e d Jim to
m ake a pr of

f err egar di ng hi s change d ci r cumst ance s . J i m pr of f er ed evi dence thathe no l ongerhad an ow ner s hi p i nt er es ti n t he aut om obi l e dea l er s hi p, thathe had no a s s et s , and that hi s m onthl y l i vi ng expens es exce eded hi s i ncome by m or e than $1, 100. H e al s o al l eged that hi s s on w as now li ving w i th hi m , and thathi s daught erhad l i ved w i th hi m f orei ght een m o n th s , th o u g h s h e c u rr e n tly liv e d w ith h e r m o th e r.

### 5

¶10 . A gg ri eved by the chan cel l or’ s den i al of his m oti on for reconsi derat i on , Ji m app eal s, a rg u in g th a t th e c h a n c e llo r e rre d b y fa ili n g to c o n d u c t a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g o n re m a n d to c o n sid e r c h a n g e s s in c e th e 2 0 0 4 ju d g m e n t. D i s cus s i on ¶11 . T his C ou rt em ploys a l i m i t ed st and ard of revi ew i n dom est i c rel at i on s cases; that i s, w e w i l l notrever se a cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ngs “unl es s the cha ncel l orw as m ani f es t l y w r ong, cl ear l y err oneous , oran err oneous l egal st andar d w as appl i ed. ” Phil li ps v. Phil

li ps , 904 So. 2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 1 ( M is s . 2 0 0 4 ). A s a lw a y s , q u e s tio n s o f l a w a re re v ie w e d d e n o v o . W oodel l v. P arker , 8 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). ¶12. I t i s not ed at the out s et that R honda has not f i l ed a br i ef

. T he C our t m ay cons i derher d e fa u lt a s a c o n fe s s io n o f e rr o r a n d r e v e rs e th e ju d g m e n t b e lo w . See McB r ide v. Jones , 803 So. 2d 1168, 1169- 70 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng May v. May , 2 9 7 S o . 2 d 9 1 2 , 9 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 7 4 )). See al s o M . R . A . P. 3 1(d) ( “A n appel l ee w ho f ai l s t o f i l e a br i ef

w i l l notbe hea r d ator al argum ent exceptby perm i s s i on of the court . ”) . H ow ever , i n m att er s of chi l d cus t ody and
s uppor t , orw her e r es ol ut i on of the mat t er“aff

ect s the ec onom i c bal ance betw een the noncu stod ial an d th e c u stod ial p are n t, ” this C o u rtw il l “m ak e a sp ec ial effo rtto rev iew the re co rd fo r s u p p o rtfo r a ff

ir m a n c e .” B arberv. B arber , 608 So. 2d 1338, 1340 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng Sparkm an v. Sparkm an , 4 4 1 S o . 2 d 1 6 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 ); G a rc e a u v. R o b e rts , 363 So. 2d 249 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 )). ¶13. H ow ever , consi s t entw i th t hi s C our t ’ s i ns truct i ons setouti n Y e lv e r ton I, w e hol d that the cha ncel l ors hal l conducta n e vi dent i ary he ar i ng t o det erm i ne the f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) the val ue o f m a rital a ss e ts, in c lu d in g th e v a lu e o f Jim ’s in ter e st in Y e lv e rto n I m p o rts (m a rital a ss e ts

### 6

s hal l be val ued ata t i m e no l at erthan the dat e of di vo r ce, and s hal l be bas ed on evi dence pr es ent ed atthe r emand hear i ng) ; (2) t he am ountof per i odi c al i m ony and chi l d s uppor tdue up unt i l the t i m e of

the r emand hear i ng, w hi ch s hal l be de t erm i ned bas ed on ci r cumst ance s th a t h a v e o c c u rre d u p u n til th e tim e o f th e re m a n d h e a rin g ; a n d ( 3 ) th e a m o u n t o f p e rio d ic
a lim o n y a n d c h ild su p p o rt g o in g fo rw a rd fro m the ti m e o f th e rem a n d h e a rin g , w h ich sh a ll be det erm i ned bas ed on the ci r cumst ance s exi s t i ng atthe t i m e of the r emand hear i ng. ¶ 1 4 . AF F I RM ED I N P ART ; RE VE RS ED I N P ART AND RE M ANDE D. W AL L E R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND GR AV E S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, L AMAR AN D P I E RC E , J J . , CO NC UR . CH AN DL E R, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .