Opinion ID: 859461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pending Issues

Text: ¶21. During the 2011 hearing, Reasor raised his custody and support of the child to oppose Jordan’s request for arrears. Jordan objected, stating that the issue was not properly before the court. The chancellor sustained Jordan’s objection. ¶22. According to Reasor, the chancellor erred by refusing to consider pending issues before the court – specifically a modification of his child-support obligation – which he claims he raised during the 2008 hearing.9 Jordan contends no other issues were pending before the court, and Reasor never requested child support. ¶23. The Court considered this precise issue in Goodin v. Department of Human Services, 772 So. 2d 1051 (Miss. 2000). In Goodin, the Department of Human Services, on behalf of the mother, sued the defendant for back child support. Goodin, 772 So. 2d at 1053 (¶1). Based on his recent job loss and back injury, the defendant requested the chancellor reduce 8 Reasor and his attorney were served on April 20, 2011. The chancellor assigned to the case recused, and the case was reset for hearing. The case was assigned to a new chancellor. Thereafter, Jordan served Reasor and his attorney with a second notice of hearing on June 30, 2011. 9 During the 2008 hearing, Reasor did not request child support from Jordan. In the event the chancellor declined to grant Reasor custody, Reasor requested the chancellor place the child in an aunt’s care. Reasor requested the chancellor order Jordan to pay child support to the aunt, not himself. 9 his past-due and future child-support payments. Id. at 1056 (¶19). The chancellor declined. Id. On appeal, the Court affirmed the chancellor’s ruling, holding that “First, Goodin filed no petition for modification of support. As a result, the issue of modification was not properly before the trial court, and any statements relating to the cause of termination are irrelevant to the case.” Id. at 1056-57 (¶¶20-21). ¶24. Likewise, because Reasor failed to file a petition to modify child support in the trial court, the issue was not properly before the chancellor. Thus, the chancellor properly denied Reasor’s request. This issue is without merit.