Opinion ID: 2642621
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rental Property Income

Text: ¶18. A chancellor may determine gross income for child support payments from all sources “. . . that may reasonably be expected to be available to the absent parent . . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101(3)(a) (Rev. 2009). One component of the chancellor’s determination of Perry’s gross income was future revenue from the rental properties the Collinses owned during their marriage. The chancellor, however, awarded those properties to Iretha in the Final Order. It would therefore be quite impossible for Perry to reasonably expect to be awarded the benefit of rental income stemming from property he no longer owned. The Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in its opinion, but found the error harmless. See Collins v. Collins, No. 2010-CA-01909, 2012 WL 3570380 (Aug. 21, 2012). We concur with the Court of Appeals’s determination of error but find that such error is not harmless for reasons discussed below. We find that the chancellor abused her discretion in attributing any future rental income to Perry when he no longer owned the property. 8