Opinion ID: 1698391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the lower court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's claim for past due child support contrary to established law.

Text: DHS alleges that the amended judgment's dismissal with prejudice of the past due child support contravened Mississippi case law. This Court has repeatedly held that child support is awarded for the benefit and protection of the child, and that such benefits belong to the child. Varner v. Varner, 588 So.2d 428, 432 (Miss. 1991) (citing Lawrence v. Lawrence, 574 So.2d 1376, 1381 (Miss. 1991); Cumberland v. Cumberland, 564 So.2d 839, 847 (Miss. 1990); Nichols v. Tedder, 547 So.2d 766, 781 (Miss. 1989); Alexander v. Alexander, 494 So.2d 365, 368 (Miss. 1986)). These obligations to the child vest in the child as they accrue, and no court may thereafter modify or forgive them if they be not paid. Varner, 588 So.2d at 432 (citing Premeaux v. Smith, 569 So.2d 681, 685 (Miss. 1990); Thurman v. Thurman, 559 So.2d 1014, 1016-1017 (Miss. 1990); Cumberland, 564 So.2d at 847; Brand v. Brand, 482 So.2d 236, 237 (Miss. 1986); Hailey v. Holden, 457 So.2d 947, 951 (Miss. 1984); Hambrick v. Prestwood, 382 So.2d 474, 476 (Miss. 1980)). Rains alleges that the amended judgment from which the DHS is appealing was approved by the DHS. Rains states that a consent judgment cannot be set aside absent a clear showing that it was obtained by fraud, or the substantial equivalent thereof, or was based on mutual mistake. Guthrie v. Guthrie, 226 Miss. 190, 84 So.2d 158, 161 (1955). The Chancellor in his Opinion cited Rule 60(b)(1), (4), and (6) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure: (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. The Chancellor also cited Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So.2d 219, 221 (Miss. 1984), for the principle that Rule 60(b) relief was extraordinary and may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances, and that neither ignorance nor carelessness on the part of an attorney will provide grounds for relief. Id. The question in this case involves more than the ignorance on the part of the attorneys: it involves what Judge Warner also believed to be a mistake. Judge Warner, in response to a letter from Jennifer Adams, wrote the following: (1) I received a copy of the letter to me. (2) I am not related to Dennis Rains. (3) The order I signed was prepared and presented to me by your attorney. I did not have a trial. (4) Please contact Mrs. Sturdivant at the Lauderdale Co. Dept. of Human Services for help. (5) Back child support is vested and cannot be forgiven. Your attorney should not have done this. (Emphasis in original). The letter was signed and dated April 15, 1991. At the hearing, the DHS tried to have this letter admitted into evidence, but the Chancellor refused, although he never read the letter, and allowed it in for identification purposes only. Considering this State's longstanding adherence to the principle that past due child support vests and cannot be forgiven absent payment, in the case sub judice, it was neither the attorneys' nor the chancellors' place to forgive the arrearage.