Opinion ID: 1649417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the chancellor abused his discretion and committed manifest error in awarding child support in excess of the statutory guidelines without any findings of fact to justify the upward deviation?

Text: ¶ 10. Awards of child support in Mississippi are subject to the child support guidelines set forth in Miss Code Ann. § 43-19-101(2000). The guidelines constitute a rebuttable presumption that where there is one child the award should be fourteen percent (14%) of the parent's adjusted gross income. Id. § 43-19-101(1). These guidelines apply unless the court makes a written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate... Id. § 43-19-101(2). The guidelines also provide for circumstances where the adjusted gross income is greater than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) as was Bruce Vaughn's income. In such cases, the court shall make a written finding in the record as to whether or not the application of the guidelines established in this section is reasonable. Id. § 43-19-101(4). ¶ 11. The chancellor applied the fourteen percent statutory standard to the entire amount of Bruce's adjusted gross income of $96,000. In his statement of issues raised in this appeal, Bruce refers to this as an upward deviation from the statutory guidelines. However, this term is inapt. Upward deviation would describe a requirement by the chancellor to pay a higher percentage than the guidelines suggest. Here, the chancellor simply applied the suggested percentage for one child to the full income even though that income was greater than $50,000. ¶ 12. The chancellor adhered to the statutory requirement that written findings shall be made in the record, noting: [b]ecause of Bruce's substantial income and Olivia's needs, the Court is required to make special findings as to the appropriate amount of child support. Bruce receives $8000 in net monthly income. This income is derived from Bruce's salary from his Sonic restaurants, property he rents to Sonic restaurants, and his share of profits from his partnership interest in Sonic of Byram. The evidence from Mr. Bivins indicated this income would continue. The fourteen percent child support guideline yields $1,100 in child support per month. The court finds that $1,100 is a necessary and reasonable amount of support to maintain a standard of living for Olivia, reasonably approaching that existing before the divorce. Bruce shall pay direct child support payments of $1,100 per month. ¶ 13. Although this Court would have benefitted from more detailed information regarding the reasonableness of this child support award, these findings of the chancellor are sufficient to comply with the requirements of § 43-19-101(4), especially since he itemized and discussed with much specificity the nature and value of the parties' assets in the equitable distribution portion of his opinion and judgment. This award is also consistent with previous holdings of this Court that a [c]hancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the child as well as the financial resources and reasonable needs of each parent. Cupit v. Cupit, 559 So.2d 1035, 1037 (Miss. 1990). Because the chancellor sought to maintain Olivia's standard of living at the pre-divorce level, he properly considered the disparity in incomes between Kay and Bruce in awarding an amount based on the statutory guidelines even though Bruce's income was considerably above $50,000 per year. This Court will not disturb a chancellor's determination of child support unless the chancellor was manifestly in error in his finding of fact and manifestly abused his discretion. Brocato v. Brocato, 731 So.2d 1138, 1144 (Miss.1999) (citing McEachern v. McEachern, 605 So.2d 809, 814 (Miss.1992)) (citations omitted), Bruce's argument that the chancellor abused his discretion and committed manifest error is without merit.