Opinion ID: 1138826
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ISSUE: Whether the Chancellor Erred in Ordering Mike to Provide Child Support in the Amount of $1,250 Per Month, Per Child in Addition to Medical Insurance and Tuition

Text: The chancellor opined that [a]s to child support, it is clear that these parties and their children have been accustomed to a very high standard of living and that with his income the father clearly has a duty to aid in their support. In determining the amount of support which Mike must provide, the chancellor held a separate hearing to ascertain the Retzers' net worth. The chancellor then concluded that the Retzers' net worth was approximately $4.1 million  $3 million of which was in Mike's name. The chancellor's conclusion seems conservative. A Balance Sheet prepared by Mike unequivocally shows that his and Nancy's combined net worth is at least $5.5 million. [1] Like his net worth, Mike's yearly income  compared to Nancy's  is also substantial. For example, the following figures reflect the salaries each received from R & R during 1984 to 1987: Mike Nancy 1984 $260,540.00 $21,590.00 1985 $279,077.00 $21,591.00 1986 $224,539.00 $21,610.00 1987 $233,769.24 $33,611.20 ___________ __________ Total: $997,925.24 $98,402.20 Vol. I, at 46; Vol. II, at 163. The Retzers also receive income from other sources ( e.g., from Retco); their joint federal and state income tax returns reveal that they received a gross income of $455,595 in 1986. This means that they received nearly $200,000 above and beyond that received from R & R. Based upon the Retzers' substantial income and the finding that it is clear that these parties and their children have been accustomed to a very high standard of living, the chancellor ordered and directed Mike to pay Nancy ... the sum of ... $1,250.00 ... per month per child ... and to provide or maintain ... medical insurance as well as the costs of the children's private school tuition for the school they now attend. [2] The amount of the award was also based upon a compilation by Nancy of the children's estimated monthly [living] expenses  an estimation to which Mike did not object nor dispute. See, e.g., Ex. 11 (Estimated Monthly Expenses); Vol. I, at 61-62 (The chancellor noted: Exhibit 11 to the written stipulations filed with this Court list[s] the living expenses of Mrs. Retzer ... and Mr. Retzer makes no objection to being required to continue paying the ... expenses that Exhibit 11 indicates he is paying. ) (emphasis added). Mike contends the chancellor's determination is too high and constitutes an abuse of discretion. He rationalizes, for the most part, that the amount compare[s] favorably with [various] public officials['] 1987 salaries ( e.g., Clerk of the Supreme Court earns $31,000, which is less than the amount which he must pay to support his two children each year). Mike adds that, [n]o matter how rich the parents, there are reasonable limits to what young children can use and consume. Nancy counters with several contentions. For example, she contends that the amount which Mike has been ordered to pay is substantially less than that which he paid prior to their separation. And Mike, himself, told the Court that any money spent on the children was not wasted. Appellee's Brief at 25. Nancy also cites relevant Mississippi statutory law which dictates any award for child support entered judicially or administratively must allocate 25% of the non-custodial parent's adjusted gross income for the support of two children unless the trial Court makes a written finding that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate. Id. at 26 (citing MISS. CODE ANN. § 43-19-101 (1989 Supp.)). The chancellor's award does not constitute 25% of Mike's gross income. Were the chancellor to have strictly complied with the statutory guideline, Mike would have been ordered to pay substantially more.

In Tedford v. Dempsey, this Court delineated a general guideline which a chancellor should consider before entering a child support decree: [T]he chancellor should consider all circumstances relevant to the needs of the children and the capacities of the parents. The reasonable needs of the children is obviously the beginning point in such inquiry. There is always some minimum level of food, clothing, shelter, day care, education medical care and the like that must be provided. Above that, what is reasonable turns on the circumstances  and one of the major circumstances is the financial resources reasonably available to each parent. 437 So.2d 410, 422 (Miss. 1983); see also Brabham v. Brabham, 226 Miss. 165, 84 So.2d 147 (1955), and its progeny. Recently-enacted statutory law provides a more specific guideline. See MISS. CODE ANN. § 43-19-101 (1990 Supp.) (recommending that 20% of adjusted gross income should be awarded for support).
Mike was ordered to pay $1,250 per month per child, which is less than 15% of his gross income. Compare with Tedford, 437 So.2d at 423 (where this Court had no inclination to disturb the Chancellor's decree since the non-custodial parent was ordered to expend only 23 percent of his income). The amount Mike must pay is also substantially less than that which is recommended by statute. MISS. CODE ANN. § 43-19-101 (1989 Supp.) (recommending 25%). And it is less than that which has been ordered by courts in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Eikenhorst v. Eikenhorst, 746 S.W.2d 882 (Tex. App. 1988) (The father, whose annual income was $250,000, was ordered to pay $3,500 per month for support of two children.); see also Zitter, Excessiveness or Inadequacy of Money Awarded as Child Support, 27 A.L.R.4th 864, at § 20 (1984 & 1989 Supp.). As noted in the preceding subsection, the chancellor's determination was based upon numerous factors: (1) the Retzers' high standard of living; (2) Mike's substantial yearly income; and (3) a compilation by Nancy of the children's estimated monthly [living] expenses  an estimation to which Mike did not object nor dispute. Mike's primary support for his contention that the child-support award is too high  i.e., a comparison between the amount of the award and the salaries received by various public officials  is unpersuasive in light of all the evidence and relevant law. In sum, the chancellor's determination cannot be disturbed unless it is against the overwhelming weight of evidence. See, e.g., Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1970), and its progeny. Perusal of the record, exhibits, briefs, and relevant case and statutory law in both Mississippi and in other jurisdictions leads this Court to conclude that the chancellor's determination must be affirmed.