Opinion ID: 861112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: legal analysis of issues on cross-appeal

Text: A. Whether the trial court should have increased child support further because there was a material change in Dr. William Ashford's income? Sandra contends that, according to the statutory guidelines, a non-custodial parent should pay 20% of his or her gross income in child support for two children. William's gross income for 1992 was over $900,000. Since 1986, William had paid Sandra a total of $1,500 per month for support of both children. Upon Sandra's cross-motion for modification, the chancellor ordered William to pay $1,800 per month: a) $900 per month for John Clay's child support directly to Sandra, b) $150 per month of Emily's child support directly to Sandra, and c) $750 per month of Emily's child support into a joint account for Sandra and Emily. Sandra argues that she was entitled to more than a $300 per month increase in child support payments. Chancery courts may modify final decrees which pertain to child support. This authority exists by statute as well as by virtue of the inherent power of the chancery court. McEachern v. McEachern, 605 So. 2d 809, 813 (Miss. 1992). This Court has allowed for consideration of an increase in child support where the children have advanced in age, inflation has continued to rise, and the ex-husband's income had increased substantially since the divorce; therefore, there is precedent for the chancellor's order increasing the amount of child support from $1,500 to $1,800 per month. See Id. See also Bracey v. Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Miss. 1982) With regard to whether the chancellor should have increased the child support award even further: Although the statutory guidelines for child support work as a rebuttable presumption, in modifying an award of child support the chancellor cannot apply the guidelines to the exclusion of the individual factors affecting former spouses and their children. McEachern, 605 So. 2d at 813. Indeed, the guidelines may not determine the specific amount of support required. This is a job for the chancellor, who has special knowledge of the actual circumstances. Id. Nonetheless, the chancellor who deviates from the statutory child support guidelines is required to make an written determination that the guidelines do not apply. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101(2). William earned between $900,000 and $1,000,000 per year. The chancellor ordered him to pay $1, 800 per month in child support, or $21,600 per year (less than 3% of his gross income). Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101(1) raises the presumption that Sandra should have been awarded child support in the amount of 20% of William's adjusted gross income. Furthermore, Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19101(4) requires that the chancellor make a written finding in the record as to the applicability of the guidelines where the adjusted gross income of the paying spouse is more than $50,000. The chancellor in this case made no written findings regarding the application of the statutory guidelines. For this reason, this case is remanded on cross-appeal for a determination of whether the presumption set forth in the statute has been rebutted in this case. B. Whether attorney fees for purposes of this appeal should be awarded to Sandra Ashford? Upon due consideration, this Court finds that Sandra is not entitled to attorney fees on appeal.