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 0 6 8 3 - S CT KEN NE TH E. SM I TH
v. SAND RA K

. SM I TH
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 25/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. DA N H . FAI RLY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CHANCERY COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: J U LI E A N N EPPS E. M I CH A EL M A RK S ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: SAN DR A K . SM I TH ( PRO SE) NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 10/ 29/ 2009 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. K enneth E . S m i t h ( K enneth) and Sandr a K . Sm i th ( Sandr a) w er e gr ant ed a di vor ce on J une 14, 1989, i n Ranki n Count y. C ons i s t entw i th the f i nal di vor ce de cr ee, Sandr a w as or der ed t o pay $125 perm onth i n chi l d s upportt o K enneth. K enneth fi l ed a pet i t i on f or cont empt on D ece m ber19, 2007, i n w hi ch he al l eged thatSandr a ow ed $24, 000 i n pas t - due chi l d s uppor t . T hi s cas e w as t hen r ef err ed t o a fa m i l y m as t ersubj ectt o the f i nal appr oval of th e c h a n c e llo r. ¶2 . Sandr a conc e de d a ttr i a l tha ts he w a s i n c on t e mptbu tc l a i med a c r e di ta ga i ns t t he $24, 000 a rr ear age. The f ami l y m as t erf

ound thatSandr a w as ent i t l ed t o a cr edi tof $14, 000

### Her et ofor e, thefindings of the fami ly m as te r that havebee n approved by the 1 

### chance ll or and thus bec omea j udgme nt of the tria l cour

t wil l be re fe rr ed t o as thefindings of the tri alcourt f

or pur pose s of cl arit y. The $2 4,0 00 total was gatheredfrom a person al spread sheet titled“Nick i’s Ch ild 2 

### Supp ort P ayments” that K enn ethhadmaintain ed sin ce the d ivo rce decree in 1 98 9 until Nic ki’ s ei ghte enth birthday in Febr uar y 2006. Ke nneth did not

se ek c hil d suppor

t be yond Feb ruary20 06 , becau se Nic k i n o l o ng er livedwitheither p arent o r dep end ed o n th eir sup po rt. 2 fo r su m s S a n d ra a lleg e d ly h a d w ith h e ld fro m h e r p a y c h e c k a n d fo r tim e th e c h ild a lleg e d ly had l i ved w i th Sandr a. B as ed on the cr edi t s al l ow ed by the f ami l y m as t er , Sandr a w as f ound t o be i n ci vi l cont empt of courta nd t o ow e a bal ance of $10, 000 i n chi l d- s uppor tarr ear age. In a d d it ion , h e a w ard ed att o rne y ’s fees a n d co u rtco sts t o K en n eth. T h ese fi n d ing s w ere accep t ed b y the ch ancell or, b ecom i ng a j ud gm ent of the tr i al cou rt . K enn et h ti m el y ap peals , a rg u in g th a t th e ju d g m e n t am o u n t w a s im p ro p e rly re d u c e d b y th e trial c o u rt. 1 FACTS ¶ 3 . K e n n e th a n d S a n d ra (n o w S a n d ra S p u rlo c k ) w e re g ra n ted a d iv o rc e in R a n k in C o u n ty on J une 14 , 1 98 9. O ne c hi l d w a s b orn t o thi s marr i a ge , Ni c ki Cha r m Smi th ( N i cki ) , on February 17, 1988, w i th cust ody gra nt ed t o K enneth upon di vor ce. C ons i s t entw i th the f i nal d iv o rc e d e c re e , the trial c o u rt o rd e re d S a n d ra to p a y $ 1 2 5 p e r m o n th a s c h ild su p p o rt to K enneth, i n addi t i on t o t he chi l d’ s m edi cal , dent al , and hospi t al expens es , w i th the f i r s tchi l ds u p p o rt p a y m e n t to b e g in J u ly 1 , 1 9 8 9 . ¶ 4 . K e n n e th filed a n a c tio n fo r c o n tem p t in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 7 fo r p a st-d u e c h ild su p p o rt in the s um of

$24, 000. A ttr i al , Sandr a s oughtcr edi tagai ns tthe $24, 000 al l eged pa s t - due

2 chi l d- s uppor tamount , cl ai m i ng s he had pa i d $35 perw eek f r om M ar ch 1991 unt i l N ovember 1 9 9 4 f o rc h i l d s u p p o r tth a twa s wi th h e l d b y h e re mp l o y e rwh i l e s h e wa s e mp l o y e d a tRa m-

### No court ord er for w ithh old ing was entered b y th e court. Th is is asserted as anout- 3 

### of-co urt, v oluntaryactionbySan dra. T hi s i s s ue bec om es f

ur therc onvol ut ed i n the af f i davi ti n w hi ch K enneth’ s m ot her 4 s t at e d tha tN i c ki l i ve d wi th h e ra s of Fe brua ry 2 6, 20 06 , a nd di d n otment i on N i c ki l i vi ng w i th ei therpar ent . N o f ur theri nf

or m at i on aboutthats t at ementw as pr ovi ded.



### 3 Fab, I nc. , ( R am-Fab) i n C r os s ett , A r kans as . Sandr a al so soughtcr edi tf orthe t i m e per i od 3 betw een M ar ch 2002 and A pr i l 2004 w hen Sandr a cl ai m ed N i cki l i ved w i th Sandr a and not K e n n e th . ¶5. Sandr a pr oduced onl y t es t i m oni al evi dence of the w i thhol di ng f r om herw ages dur i ng em ploym ent i n A rkansas. S and ra expl ai ned that herl ack o f docum entat i on w as becau se R am-Fab ha d under gone many per s onnel change s , and w hi l e R am-Fab ha d s ear ched f ort he d o c u m e n ts, S a n d ra h a d b e e n to ld th e re c o rd s w e re lo s t a n d /o r d e stro y e d . In re sp o n se to S a n d r a ’ s t e s t i mo n y , Ke n n e th d e n i e d r e c e i v i n g a n y o f t h e $ 3 5 - p e r - we e k p a y me n t s . No document at i on orr ecor ds w er e pr ovi ded t o c onf i r m ordeny thes e payment s by ei thers i de. ¶6. Sandr a l i kew i s e pr ovi ded onl y t es t i m oni al evi dence thatN i cki had l i ve d wi th her f r om M arc h 2 0 0 2 u n ti l A p ri l 20 0 4 , stati n g tha t she h ad fed N icki, that N icki h ad slep t i n S an d ra’s hous e, thatSandr a had s uppor t ed N i cki , and t hatS andr a had t aken N i cki t o s chool every day. N o document at i on orr ecor ds w er e pr ovi ded t o conf i r m ordeny thi s t es t i m ony attr i al , exce pt f ora D epart m entof

H um an Servi ces A f

f i davi tof A ccount i ng i n w hi ch K enneth s t at ed that N i cki no l ongerl i ved w i th hi m af t erherei ght eenth bi r thday. 4 ¶7 . T esti m o n y p rov ided b y N icki co rrob o rated that sh e h ad sp e n t tim e in h er m o ther’s
car e “of f and on, ” butN i cki di s put ed heractual re s i dence atthe t i m e. K enneth di s put ed that N i cki had l i ved w i th S andr a, butst at ed thatN i cki had di vi ded t i m e among K enneth’ s hom e,T he tr i al courtdoes nots t at e how the $14, 000 t ot al w as cal cul at ed. H ow ever , tr i al 5 t es t i m ony s how ed thatSandr a, o n her ow n behal f , r eques t ed and a f

f i r m ed thats he w as s e e k in g $ 1 1 ,0 0 0 in c re d its a g a in s t h e r $ 2 4 ,0 0 0 a rr e a ra g e . 

### 4 K e n n e th ’s m o th e r’s h o m e , a n d S a n d ra ’s h o m e a t th e c h ild ’s w ill , b u t sh e h a d liv e d w ith K e n n e th . ¶8. T he t r i al cour tnot ed t hatt he t es t i m ony of the part i es w as extr emel y uncl ear . T he tr i al
courts t at ed that “t est i m ony fr om both s i des has been ve ry conf us i ng, very s por adi c about payment s r ece i ved, a boutpa ym ent s thatw er e s uppos edl y m ade – s uppos edl y cr edi t ed. ” The tr i al cour tal s o st at ed t hatt her e w as conf us i on as t o w her e t he chi l d l i ved, w ho s he l i ved w i th, and w ho w as r es pons i bl e f orthe chi l d’ s s uppor tatvar i ous per i ods of t i m e. Fi nal l y, the tr i al
c o u rt e sta b lish e d th a t “if th e ch ild w a s liv in g w ith the m o th e r th e n sh e sh o u ld b e e n tit led to cr edi t s . ” ¶9. I n i s s uance of

the f i nal de cr ee, the tr i al c our tc r edi t ed Sandr a $14 , 00 0 ag ai nst t he chi l d-suppo rtj ud gm ent f or the p aym ents m ade “w hil e [ S and r a] w as w orki ng i n A rkans as that
w e re w ith h e ld fro m h e r p a y c h e c k a n d fo r th e p e rio d s o f tim e th a t th e c h ild liv e d w ith [Sa n d ra] an d that [Sa n d ra] w as re sp o n sible for the ch il d ’s su p p o rt . ” T h u s, th e trial co u rt 5 fo u n d th e c h ild -s u p p o rt a rr e a ra g e to b e $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 . ¶ 1 0 . T h e trial c o u rt o rd e re d th a t S a n d ra p a y $ 2 0 0 p e r m o n th u n til th e ju d g m e n t is p a id in fu ll, in c lu d in g th e leg a l in ter e st ra te o f eig h t pe rc e n t. T h e trial c o u rt a lso o rd e re d S a n d ra to pay $750 i n att orney’ s f ees , $107 i n courtcos t s , and a $35 pr oces s f ee w i thi n s i xty days of the hea r i ng. T hi s j udgm entw as appr oved i n t ot al i ty by the cha ncel l oron M ar ch 25, 2008. L E G A L A N A L Y S IS

### 5

¶11. T he part i es di d not di s agr ee that Sandr a w as , i n f act , i n con t empt f

or f ai l ur e t o pay chi l d s uppor t . K enneth appeal s onl y the cr edi tappl i ed t o the chi l d s uppor tow ed and the d e te rm in a tio n o f t h e a m o u n t o f c re d it. ¶12. D o m esti c-relati o n s m att ers are rev iew ed un d er t h e lim ited su b sta n tiale v id e n c e /m a n if

e s t- e rr o r r u le . Evans v. Evans , 994 So. 2d 765, 768 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng G ia n n a ris v. G ia n n a r is , 9 6 0 S o . 2 d 4 6 2 , 4 6 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 )). T h is m ea n s a c h an ce ll o r’s fin d in g s w ill n o t b e d istu rb e d u n les s th e c h a n c e llo r w a s “ m a n ife stly w ro n g , cle a rly
err oneous , oran err oneous l egal s t andar d w as appl i ed. ” Id . at768. T hi s C ou rtw i l l f i nd
m a n ife st e rro r o n ly w h e n th e v e rd ict “ is a re su lt o f p re ju d ice , b ias , o r fra u d , o r is m a n ife stly agai ns tthe w ei ghtof

cr edi bl e evi dence . ” Id . at773 ( quot i ng Mis s . D ep’t of T r ansp. v. Johnson , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 )). In re v iew in g a c a se o n a p p e a l, w ith re sp e c t to i s s ues of f actw her e the courtm ade no s peci f i c fi ndi ng of

f act , the as s um pt i on i s thatt he
c o u rt re so lv e d a ll fac t issu e s in fa v o r o f th e a p p e llee o r a t lea st in a m a n n e r c o n sis ten t w ith th e d e c re e . L ahm ann v. H al l m on , 722 So. 2d 614, 620 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng Sm ith v. Sm ith , 5 4 5 S o . 2 d 7 2 5 , 7 2 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 )) . ¶13. C our t s aw ar d chi l d s uppor tt o the cus t odi al pa r entf orthe bene f

i tand pr ot ect i on of the
c h ild . V ar nerv. V

ar ner , 588 So. 2d 428, 432 ( M i s s . 1991) ( ci t i ng L aw r ence v. L aw r ence , 574 S o. 2 d 13 76, 1381 ( M i s s . 1991) ) . Such benef i t s bel ong t o the chi l d, and the cus t odi al p a re n t h a s a f

id u c ia ry d u ty to h o ld th e m f o r t h e u s e o f t h e c h ild . Id . T h e law rem ains fi rm thatcourt - or der ed chi l d- s uppor tpayment s ves tin t he chi l d as they ac crue and may not th e re a ft e r b e m o d if

ie d o r f o rg iv e n , o n ly p a id . Id . at 4 3 4 . B u t th is d o e s n o t m e a n th a t eq u ity
m a y n o t at tim e s s u g g e st ex pos tf acto appr oval of

extr a j udi ci al a dj us t m ent s i n the manner

### Thes e two ti meperiods ar e f rom March 1991 unti l Novem ber 1994 in whic h Sandra 6 

### cl ai ms a$ 35 garn ishment was w ithh eld fro m her w eeklywag e check , andfrom 2 00 2 to 2004, whe n Sandra a ll ege s that Nic ki l ive d with Sandra.

6 a n d fo rm in w h ic h s u p p o rt p a y m e n ts h a v e b e e n m a d e . Id . T he noncus t odi al par entm ay be ent i t l ed t o c r edi tf

ora ny a ddi t i onal s uppor tw hi ch he/ s he has evi nced by s at i s f act ory pr oof to th e tr ia l c o u rt . Id . at435. I . TH E C O NT EM PT ¶14. I n a contem pt act i on conce r ni ng pas t - due chi l d s uppor t , w hen the cus t odi al par ent i ntr oduces e vi dence thatthe noncus t odi al pa r entw ho i s r equi r ed t o pa y the s uppor thas f ai l ed to d o s o , a p ri m a f

a c ie c a s e o f c o n te m p t h a s b e e n m a d e . Lahm ann , 7 2 2 S o . 2 d a t 6 2 0 . See al s o G u th rie v. G u th rie , 5 3 7 S o . 2 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ). A t th is p o in t, th e b u rd e n fa lls on the def

endi ng party, t o avoi d a f i ndi ng of cont empt , t o pr ove thatther e w as paymentor otherd ef

ens e, and thi s pr oof

m us tbe “c l earand convi nci ng and r i s e above a s t at e of do ub t ful nes s . ” Lahm ann , 722 So. 2d at620 ( ci t i ng D uncan v. D uncan , 417 So. 2d 908, 9 0 9 -91 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 )). ¶1 5. A t t r i al , Sandr a co nc e de d a pr i ma f a c i e ca s e f

orco nt e mpt . I n f

a c t , San dr a doe s not appea l the court ’ s f

i ndi ng thats he w as i n ci vi l cont em ptof court . D es pi t e bei ng l es s t han di l i genti n heref

f or t s t o p ay, S andr a, how ever , di s put ed tw o t i m e per i ods t ot al i ng a p p ro x im a tely fiv e y e a rs th a t sh e a rg u e s s h o u ld b e c re d ited a g a in st h e r ju d g m e n t. 6 ¶16. C ons equent l y, beca us e Sandr a conc edes thats he i s i n ci vil co ntemptof court , the q u e stio n b e fo re th is C o u rt is w h e th e r S a n d ra m e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f to sh o w th a t sh e sh o u ld be al l ow ed thes e tw o cr edi t s . T he t r i al cour tobvi ous l y w as of the opi ni on t hatSandr a had
m etherbur den t o r ece i ve cr edi t s f orthes e tw o t i m e per i ods . T her ef or e, underthe es t abl i s hed

### 7

sc o p e o f re v iew , the c h a n c e llo r’s fin d in g s w ill b e d is tu rb e d o n ly if th e y a re m a n ife stly
e rr o n e o u s o r d e m o n s tr a te th e a p p lic a tio n o f a n e rr o n e o u s le g a l s ta n d a rd . Lahm ann , 722 S o. 2d at620 ( ci t i ng Sm ith v. Sm ith , 607 So. 2d 122, 126 ( M i s s . 1992) ) . T hi s C our tm us tl ook
a t th e e v id e n c e p ro v id e d b y th e p a rt ie s th a t s u p p o rt s th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s fi n d in g s . Id . I I . CRE DI T F OR AL LE GED GAR NI S HM EN T ¶17. Sandr a al l eges that f r om M ar ch 1991 unt i l N ovember1994, he re m pl oyerR am-Fab
w i thhel d $35 perw eek t o be pai d t o K enneth f orchi l d s uppor t . Sandr a, how ever , pr ovi ded no document at i on, no t ax f or m s , no l ett erfr om herem pl oyer , no corr obor at i ng w i tnes s es , no w r i t t en, pr i nt ed, orcopi ed evi dence t o pr ove thi s al l egati on. Sandr a onl y t es t i f i ed thats he ha d made thr e e a t t e mpt s t o c on t a c tRam- Fa b a bo utd oc umen t a t i on , a nd tha tRam- Fa b ha d
u n d e rg o n e n u m e ro u s p e rso n n e l ch a n g e s th a t re su lted in th e lo ss o r d e stru c tio n o f a ll d o c u m e n ta tio n th a t c o u ld h a v e s u p p o rt e d h e r c la im . ¶18. I n Cr o w v. Cr o w, 622 So. 2d 1226, 1231 ( M i s s . 1993) , the noncus t odi al par ent s ought
cr edi tf orcas h, gas, and ut i l i t i es he cl ai m ed he ha d pai d f orthe bene f

i tof the chi l dr en. T he C o u rt h e ld th a t “R o y h a s fa iled to d e m o n stra te b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e h e p a id
s u p p o rt m o n e y to th e c h ild re n u n d e r c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h e re th e s u p p o rt m o n e y w a s u s e d . . . f orthei rbenef

i t . ” I d . ¶19. T he f

act s i n Cr ow ar e s i m i l art o thos e i n t he m att erbef or e the C our tt oday. T he f ather ( R oy) cl ai m ed cr edi tf

or( 1) cas h payment s al l egedl y m ade di r ect l y t o hi s daught er s , ( 2) g a so lin e c h a rg e s b y h is d a u g h ter s in th e a m o u n t o f $ 1 ,5 6 0 , a n d (3 ) p a y m e n t o f th e e lec tric b il l and w ater b il l i n the a m o u n ts of $ 2 , 0 5 9 . 0 8 an d $ 2 5 5 , resp ec ti v ely, f o r th e h o m e w h ere th e c h ild re n a n d th e irm o th e r h a d liv e d fo r s e v e n te e n m o n th s . Id
. R o y tes tified h e h a d p a id

### 8

the chi l dr en appr oxi m at el y $6, 000 i n c as h f orc hi l d s uppor t , much of w hi ch w as pl ace d i nsi de a m ai l bo x; he had no rec o rd o f t hese pa ym ents . I d. R oy al s o t es t i f

i ed thatw at er u t i l i z e d b y h i s s a wmi l l a n d t h e wa t e rf l o wi n g t o t h e ma r i t a l h o me we r e me a s u r e d b y th e s a me m e ter . R o y c o u ld n o t id e n tify w ith a n y c e rta in ty th e p a rt o f th e b ill g e n e ra ted b y h is fa m ily and the p artgen erat ed b y h i s busi ness. I d . ¶20 . R oy al so cl ai m ed ex p en ses fr om gas bil l s, bu t he cou l d produ ce on l y si x invoices,
r ef l ect i ng onl y a bout$100. I d . R oy t es t i f

i ed he r egul ar l y had pai d f orgas ol i ne by che ck, but h e fa ile d to p ro d u c e a n y c a n c e lle d c h e c k s . I d . R oy s ai d he had pai d t he el ectr i c bi l l fort he f or m erm ar i t al hom e f

orabouts event een mont hs af t erhe had m oved out ; hi s ex- w i f e t es t i f i ed
w i tho utc on tr a di c t i on by Roy tha tthe s e pa ymen t s w e r e the r e s ul tof a ve rba l a gr e e ment
w her eby R oy vol unt ar i l y agr eed t o pay the el ectr i c and w at erbi l l s unt i l he coul d putt he h o u s e in h e r n a m e , a n d a t th e tim e o f t h e tr ia l, t h is h a d n o t b e e n d o n e . I d. T he C our trul ed th a t R o y h a d fa iled to s h o w “ b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e h e p a id su p p o rt m o n e y to the chi l dr en underci r cumst ance s w her e t he supportm oney w as used t o pr ovi de s hel t er , f ood,
c lo th in g , a n d o th e r n e c e s s itie s fo r t h e irb e n e fi t.” I d. at1231. ¶21. I ti s t hi s C our t ’ s opi ni on t hatS andr a’ s t es t i m ony al one does notm eett he burden of pr oof r equi red of h ert o r ece i ve a c r edi tf oramount s s he cl ai m ed w er e w i thhel d f r om her paychec k. S i m ply put, the n on cust od i al parentm ustpresentm or e than uncorr obor at ed verbal test im o n y to rece ive c red itag ains t an a ll eg ed ch il d -sup p o rtarrea rag e. T h u s, the tri al co u rt comm i t t ed mani fes ter r ori n gr ant i ng Sandr a cr edi tf orthe al l eged vol unt ary w age w i thhol di ng.

### 9

¶22. T her ef

or e, Sandr a s houl d not have been gi ven credi t for t he al l eged $35- per - w eek g arn ishm en t by h er A rka n sas e m p loy er. I I I . CRE DI T F OR TI M E L I VE D W I TH NONC US TODI AL P ARE NT ¶ 2 3 . It is c lea r th a t o n e m a y n o t b e g ra n te d c re d it fr o m a ju d g m e n t o f p a st-d u e c h ild
s u p p o rt w ith o u t p ro v id in g sa tis fa c to ry p ro o f o r e v id e n c e . V ar ner , 5 8 8 S o . 2 d a t 4 3 5 . T h is C our t , i n A lexanderv. A lexander , 4 9 4 S o . 2 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ), d e a lt w ith m e e tin g th is bur den of

pr oof w hen i tappl i ed i tt o chi l dr en l i vi ng i n the noncus t odi al par ent ’ s car e. T he
rul i ng i n A lexander , whi c h a l l o we d f o rc r e d i tt o b e g i v e n t o a n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n tf o rt i me the chi l d l i ved i n t hathom e, w as expounded upon i n V ar ner , w her e t hi s C our tdeal tw i t h the unj us tenr i chmentof

the cu s t odi al party w hen the noncus t odi al party had t aken c us t ody of
o n e o f th e c h ild re n a n d re q u e s te d a d o w n w a rd m o d if ic a tio n o f c h ild s u p p o rt . V ar ner , 588 S o . 2 d a t 4 3 4 . ¶2 4 . In V

ar ner , thi s C our t s t at ed that , t o al l ow the cus t odi al par ent t o be compensa t ed f or t i m e thatthe chi l d had l i ved w i th the noncus t odi al par ent , abs entvi s i t at i on and other
m o d if ic a tio n s m a d e b y th e c o u rt , w o u ld b e to u n ju s tly e n ri c h th e c u s to d ia l p a re n t. V ar ner , 588 So. 2d at435 ( ci t i ng A lexanderv. A lexander , 4 9 4 S o . 2 d 3 6 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 6 )) . D et erm i ning w hetherthe requ est ed crediti s equit able and n ecessary to avoid un j ust enr i chmentof

the cus t odi al par entr equi r es t hatt he C our tbeari n m i nd t he obl i gat i on of eac h p a re n t to p ro v id e s u p p o rt fo r c h ild re n . Id . at 4 3 5 . “S a tisfa c to ry p ro o f” o f tim e sp e n t w ith the noncus t odi al pa r enti s de emed t o be f ound by a “pr eponder ance of the evi dence ” as s t at ed i n V ar ner . V ar ner , 5 8 8 S o . 2 d a t 4 3 5 .

### 10

¶25. I f , i n f act , N i cki had r es i ded w i th Sandr a f or thos e tw o year s , and Sandr a had of f er ed p ro o f sh o w in g sh e h a d p a id th e su p p o rt d ire c tly to o r f o r th e b e n e fit o f th e c h ild , sh e w o u ld have be en ent i t l ed t o a re duct i on i n chi l d s uppor t , beca us e i tw oul d have, i n ef f ect , al r eady h a v e b e e n g iv e n o r p ro v id e d fo r t h e c h ild , w h o is th e s o le b e n e fi c ia ry o f t h e s u p p o rt . See V ar ner , 588 So. 2d at435. T hi s Courts t at ed i n A lexander , “w h e n th e c h ild m o v e d in w ith th e o th e r p a re n t, an d a c c e p ted th is a rra n g e m e n t fo r 2 0 m o n th s w ith c h ild su p p o rt b e in g p a id di r ect l y t o the chi l d, the par entpayi ng the s uppor ti s e nt i t l ed t ofu ll cr e d it fo r a ll su p p o rt p a id t o the chi l d. ” A lexander, 4 9 4 S o . 2 d a t 3 6 8 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶26. Sandr a pr ovi ded onl y t es t i m oni al evi dence that N i cki had l i ved w i th her f r om M ar ch 2002 unt i l A pr i l 2004. W hen K enneth and N i cki t es t i f i ed, both conce ded thatN i cki had sp en t t im e w ith S an d ra o u tsi d e the sco p e o f visit ati o n b u t dispu ted th e c laim tha t N icki’s
r es i dence w as atSandr a’ s hom e. K enneth st at ed t hatN i cki had l i ved w i th w hi cheve rpar ent s he w i s hed, and s om et i m es had eve n s t ayed w i th K enneth’ s m other . K enneth al s o m ent i oned thathe had had tr oubl e w i th N i cki r egar di ng he rs chool w or k, a nd thathe w oul d of t en s end N i cki t o S andr a’ s hom e f orhel p w i th herhom ew or k. T hi s corr obor at ed Sandr a’ s t es t i m ony thatN i cki had s t ayed a therhom e and thatSandr a had he l ped N i cki w i th he rs chool w or k and
a ls o h a d ta k e n N ic k i to s c h o o l. ¶27. T he t es t i m ony and evi dence cr eat es a very conf us i ng vi ew of w her e the chi l d m ay or m ay n o t hav e li v ed . T h e tri al co u rtad m it s th e re co rd is co n fusin g ; no n ethe less, the tri al co u rt
m ade a det erm i nat i on as t o w her e N i cki had l i ved dur i ng t he deba t ed per i od. H ow ever , the in q u iry d o e s n o t sto p th e re . W e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r S a n d ra m e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f in
su p p o rt o f h e r c laim th a t sh e m a d e a c tu a l p a y m e n ts fo r th e b e n e fit o f N ick i an d n o t p a y m e n ts

### 11

thats he w oul d have made anyw ay. A f t era re vi ew of the r ecor d, w e f i nd s he di d notm eether bur den. T her e may be t i m es w her e t es t i m ony al one i s suf f i ci ent . H ow ever , s uch w as nott he
cas e her e, as ther e w as a l ack of adequa t e pr oof

. T he Cr ow C o u rt h e ld th a t: [T ]he ru le is th a t a [n o n -c u sto d ial p a re n t] m a y re c e iv e c re d it fo r h a v in g p a id ch il d s u p p o rtw h ere , in fac t, h e p aid th e su p p o rtd ir ec tl y to o r fo r th e b e n e fit o f the chi l d, w her e t o hol d otherw i se w oul d unj us t l y enr i ch the [ cus t odi al par ent ] [ ci t i ng A lexanderv. A lexander , 4 9 4 S o . 2 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 8 (M is s . 1 9 8 6 )]. T hi s pr i nci pl e appl i es , how ever , onl y w her e the [ noncus t odi al par ent ] pr oves by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hathe has, i n fa ct , pai d t he supportt o the chi l d underci r cumst ance s w her e t he s uppor tm oney w as us ed f orthe chi l d f

or the p u rpo ses c o n tem p lat ed b y the s u p p o rto rde r, that is, to p rov ide s h elt er, f ood, cl othi ng and othernece s s i t i t es f orthe chi l d. Cr ow , 6 22 S o. 2d at1231 ( ci t i ng N i chol s v. T edder , 54 7 S o. 2d 76 6, 76 9 (M i ss. 19 8 9 )) ( emphasi s add ed). T hi s C our tt akes “s uppor t ” t o m ean “ r egul archi l d s uppor t ” as def i ned i n N ich o ls , 547 So. 2d at770, and expounde d upon i n Cr ow , 62 2 S o. 2d at12 30 . In tho se c a se s, “ re g u lar c h ild su p p o rt” re fe rre d to th e “ su m s o f m o n e y w h ich a p a re n t is o rd e re d to p a y f o rth e c h ild ’s b a s ic , n e c e s s a ry liv in g e x p e n s e s , n a m e ly fo o d , c lo th in g , a n d s h e lte r.” Cr ow , 622 So. 2d at1230. ¶28. Sandr a f

ai l ed t o pr es ents at i s f

act ory proof t hat s he s pentany money on N i cki as i nt ended by the or i gi nal s uppor tor der . W e ther ef or e r ever s e the tr i al courton thi s i s s ue. CO NC L US I ON ¶2 9. W e f

i nd t hatt he $14, 000 cr edi taw ar ded by t he t r i a l c ou r ti s uns uppor t ed by
s at i s f act ory evi dence . Fur ther , w e f i nd thatthe t r i al courter r ed i n gra nt i ng S andr a cr edi tf or chi l d s up po rtthatal l egedl y w as w i thhel d f r om Sandr a’ s payche ck by herempl oyerf r om 1991 unt i l 1994, due t o a l ack of suf f i ci entevi dence pre s ent ed on t he r ecor d. W e al s o f i nd the tr i al courterr ed i n aw ar di ng S andr a cr edi tfort he t i m e per i od t he t r i al cour tf ound N i cki

### 12

had l i ved w i th Sandr a, beca us e Sandr a di d notpr es entany pr oof thats he had made ac tual payment s for t he bene f i tof the mi norchi l d thats he w oul d nothave made w i thoutN i cki b e in g p re se n t. ¶30. B eca us e the tr i al c our tc al cul at ed Sandr a’ s chi l d- s uppor tarr ear age obl i gat i on us i ng a $10, 000 amount , w e r emand t hi s m at t er t o the cha ncel l ort o r eas s es s Sandr a’ s arr ear age obl i gat i on cons i s t entw i th t hi s deci s i on. ¶ 3 1 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P. J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR AND KI TC HENS , J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , P . J . , CO NCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. CH AND LER, J . , CO NC UR S I N PA RT AN D D I SS EN TS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N . C H A N D L E R , JU ST I C E , C O N C U R R I N G I N PA R T A N D D I SSE N T I N G IN PART: ¶ 3 2 . I a g re e w ith th e m a jo ri ty ’s d e c isio n th a t S a n d ra p re se n ted in su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to su p p o rtthe c h an ce ll o r’s fi n d ing that sh e w as e n ti tl ed to a c red ita g a in st h er c h il d -sup p o rt
arr ear age f

orthe amount s al l egedl y garni s hed f r om h er pay chec k. I di s agr ee w i t h t he
m aj or i ty’ s anal ys i s and r es ol ut i on of the i s s ue of

Sandr a’ s ent i t l ementt o cre di tf orM ar ch 2 0 0 2 to A p ril 2 0 0 4 , the p e rio d in w h ich th e c h a n c e llo r d e te rm in e d th a t N ick i li v e d w ith Sandr a. U nderthe maj or i ty’ s r eas oni ng, a s s um i ng the chanc el l orc orr ect l y de t erm i ned that N ick i li v e d w ith S a n d ra , the c h a n c e llo r e rre d b y fin d in g th a t S a n d ra w a s e n tit led to a c re d it b e c a u se “ S a n d ra d id n o t p re se n t an y p ro o f th a t sh e h a d m a d e a c tu a l p a y m e n ts fo r th e b e n e fit
o f [N ick i] th a t sh e w o u ld n o t h a v e m a d e w ith o u t N ic k i b e in g p re se n t.” I w rite s e p a ra tely b e c a u se I b e lie v e th e m a jo rity re q u ire s e x c e ss iv e p ro o f to su p p o rt a d e ter m in a tio n th a t a

### 13

noncus t odi al par enti s ent i t l ed t o cr edi tf orchi l d- s uppor tarr ear age thatacc rued dur i ng t he t i m e the chi l d l i ved w i th t he noncus t odi al par entundera de f act o change i n cus t ody. ¶ 3 3 . W e p re v io u sly h a v e h e ld th a t th e sta n d a rd fo r a n o n c u sto d ial p a re n t to re c e iv e a c re d it agai ns ta chi l d- s uppor tarr ear age i s pr oof by a pr eponder ance of the evidence thatt he
noncus t odi al par enthas , i n f act , pai d the s uppor tdi rect l y t o the chi l d f orthe bas i c l i vi ng e x p e n s e s o f f

o o d , c lo th in g , s h e lte r, a n d o th e r n e c e s s itie s . V ar nerv. V

ar ner , 588 So. 2d 428, 4 3 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ). “T h e law rem a in s firm tha t co u rt-o rd e re d c h ild su p p o rt p a y m e n ts v e st in th e ch ild as the y ac c ru e an d m a y n o t th e re a fte r b e m o d ified o r fo rg iv e n , o n ly p a id . B u t th is does notm ean thatequi ty m ay notatt i m es s ugges tex pos tf act o appr oval of

extr a- j udi ci al
a d ju s tm e n ts in th e m a n n e r a n d f o rm in w h ic h s u p p o rt p a y m e n ts h a v e b e e n m a d e .” I d. at434. A ccor di ngl y, a chi l d- s uppor tpayor“may r ece i ve cr edi tf orhavi ng pai d chi l d s uppor tw her e, in fac t, h e [or sh e ] pa id th e su p p o rt d ire c tly to o r fo r th e b e n e fit o f th e c h ild , w h e re to h o ld otherw i s e w oul d unj us t l y enr i ch the [ non- payor ] . ” I d. a t 4 3 5 . ¶34. T he maj or i ty fi nds t hatSandr a f ai l ed t o pr ove that , dur i ng the per i od the cha ncel l or f ound N i cki l i ved w i th her , she had s pentm oney on N i cki as i nt ended by the s uppor tor der i n the amount of

$125 perm onth. Sandr a’ s pr oof of expendi tur es on N i cki cons i s t ed of her
ow n t es t i m ony thatN i cki had l i ved w i th herf orappr oxi m at el y tw o year s , thats he had
s uppor t ed N i cki dur i ng t hi s per i od, and thats he had f ed N i cki an d broug hthert o s chool
every day. A l though the m aj or i ty doe s notdi s turb the chanc el l or ’ s f i ndi ng thatN i cki l i ved
w i th Sandr a, i tf

i nds thatSandr a’ s t es t i m ony w as i ns uf f i ci entt o have ena bl ed the cha ncel l or to fi n d b y a p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden c e tha t she ex p en d ed $ 1 2 5 p er m o n th fo r N icki’s bas i c l i vi ng expens es . T he maj or i ty w oul d r equi r e Sandr a t o pr ovi de evi dence as t o her

### 14

s peci f i c expendi tur es forN i cki ’ s bas i c l i vi ng expens es , cons i s t i ng, perhaps , of corr obor at i ng tes tim o n y , o r o f d o c u m e n tatio n su c h a s re c e ip ts, c a n c e led c h e c k s, o r a p e rso n a l sp re a d sh e e t. T he maj or i ty al s o pl ace s a bur den upon Sandr a t o prove t hateach expe ns e w oul d nothave b e e n in c u rr e d “ b u t f

o r” N ic k i’ s p re s e n c e in h e r h o m e . ¶3 5. W hen t her e ha s be e n a de f a c t o c ha ng e of c us t od y f r om the c us t od i a l pa r e nt t o t he
noncus t odi al par ent , the new cus t odi a l a rr a ng e ments ub s t a nt i a l l y i nc r e a s e s the l i ke l i ho odt hat th e c h ild -s u p p o rt p a y o r/d e fa c to c u sto d ian h a s m a d e e x p e n d itu re s to w a rd th e c h ild ’s b a sic l i vi ng expens es . T heref or e, I bel i eve thata de f act o cus t ody change , w hi l e notcr eat i ng a pr es um pt i on, i s addi t i onal evi dence thats uppor t s a fi nd i ng thata noncus t odi al par enthas
m ade expendi tur es t ow ar d a c hi l d’ s ba s i c l i vi ng e xpens es . I ndeed, i n V ar ner , the C o u rt d id notr equi r e document at i on orc orr obor at i ng t es t i m ony t o af f i r m the cha ncel l or ’ s f

i ndi ng t hat the chi l d- s uppor tpayorw as ent i t l ed t o a cr edi tagai ns tthe arr ear age thatacc rued w hen the ch il d w as li v ing w ith the p ay o r. I d. a t 4 3 5 -3 6 . ¶ 3 6 . C o n sid e rin g th e c h a n c e llo r’s d e ter m in a tio n that N icki h ad li v ed w ith S an d ra, S an d ra’s t es t i m ony aboutherexpendi tur es f orN i cki dur i ng thatt i m e, and the r el at i vel y s m al l amount of m onthl y chi l d s uppor tSandr a w as obl i gat ed t o pr ovi de, I w oul d f i nd thatthe cha ncel l or w as w el l w i thi n hi s di s cr et i on i n c oncl udi ng thatSandr a had expende d $125 perm ont h f or N i cki ’ s f ood, cl othi ng, s hel t er , and othernece s s i t i es dur i ng the per i od thatN i cki had l i ved
w i th he r . I woul d r e mand f ora d e t e r mi na t i on o f

Sa nd r a ’ s a rr e a r a ge wi th a c r edi tf ort he
a m o u n t attrib u tab le to th e a p p ro x im a te tw o -y e a r p e rio d d u rin g w h ich N ick i li v e d w ith Sandr a.