Opinion ID: 1652117
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in determining the net monthly income of joseph.

Text: ¶ 20. Joseph contends that the chancellor erred by enhancing his average net monthly income to include a one time parttime training course that he taught for Hinds Community College as recurring income. Juanita asserts that the chancellor's finding was clearly within his discretion. ¶ 21. In his ruling, the chancellor found that Joseph's net income from his regular job and the rental income from the Johnston Estate was $3,380.29. The chancellor additionally found that Joseph had additional employment in which he received income for 1996 in the amount of $7200 or $600 per month. Despite Joseph's testimony that his additional employment was scheduled to end, the chancellor determined that if Joseph was capable of earning this much additional income in 1996, then it was reasonable to anticipate and expect that he can and will make a like amount in future years. Thus, the chancellor found Joseph's total monthly net income to be $3,980.29. ¶ 22. When reviewing domestic relations matters, this Court in Sarver v. Sarver stated: This Court's scope of review in domestic relations matters is limited. Crow v. Crow, 622 So.2d 1226 (Miss.1993). Findings of a Chancellor will not be disturbed or set aside by this Court on appeal unless we are of the opinion the decision made by the trial court was manifestly wrong and not supported by substantial, credible evidence,... or unless an erroneous legal standard was applied. Pittman v. Pittman, 652 So.2d 1105 (Miss.1995); Jernigan v. Jernigan, 625 So.2d 782, 784 (Miss. 1993); Snow Lake Shores Property Owners Corp. v. Smith, 610 So.2d 357, 360 (Miss.1992). Sarver v. Sarver, 687 So.2d 749, 753 (Miss. 1997). We find that the chancellor's inclusion into Joseph's net income an amount of additional income earned during 1996 from a one time part-time training course that he taught at Hinds Community College was an abuse of his discretion. Thus, the chancellor's conclusion that Joseph's net income equaled $3,980.29 was manifestly wrong and unsupported by any substantial, credible evidence. When questioned about this additional employment, Joseph responded as follows: Q. One question Mr. Bost asked you was your response to his question on the money of Laterno. What is that? A. I am teaching an adult class. I'm primarily a high school teacher. I'm teaching a special adult class training potential employees for Laterno, but I am paid by Hinds Community College to do this. Q. And it's reflected in your.... A. No, sir, it's not because this is something that has just recently  since our last tax statement, this is something that just happened. Q. You are a welder teacher by trade? A. Yes, sir, I am. A welding teacher. Q. Judge needs to know then what type of money do they pay you for teaching this class? A. Teaching this welding class? Q. Yes. A. They are paying me $25.00 an hour. Q. And how many hours a month are you teaching? BY THE COURT: Or a week. It might be easier. How often does this class meet? Q. How often does it meet? A. It's eight hours a week. BY THE COURT: That's $200 a week. Q. And how many months does it last? A. Well, as of the week after Thanksgiving, it will be terminated. Q. That will be the end of it? A. That will be the end of it, yes, sir. Q. And then what  Judge needs to know the total length of time you did that in '96? Do you know? A. I'm not sure exactly. It's been going on now for, probably since last May. Off and on. There has been some breaks in between, but this is the last one. I have no contract for any more.       Q. And this teaching at Laterno that you testified that you got $25.00 an hour for, was this the first year that this was done.? A. Yes, sir. This was supposed to be a short term thing. We  I talked it over with my wife. This was before the separation. We agreed that I would do it. Most of the income went towards payment on the loans for the birds. As a matter of fact, the first two or three payments did. It was suppose to terminate  as a matter of fact, the last class I taught was when Mr. Bost's own son was in it. That was supposed to have been my last one. Q. So it's not an annual thing? A. Oh, no sir, this was a one time  this was just kind of  as a matter of fact, it was in three or four different locations and they were supposed to have all been terminated way back during the summer, but they asked the Vicksburg Branch because of our success there. Thus, it is clear from the record in this case that Joseph's additional employment from which he earned extra income during 1996 was a one time event and that he had no contract or expectation for this additional employment to continue. Therefore, we hold that the chancellor's conclusion that because Joseph was capable of earning this additional amount of income during 1996 that he should be required to continue to earn this additional amount of income was unreasonable and clearly erroneous. As a result, because we find that the chancellor abused his discretion, we reverse and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.