Ballard v. Ballard

Citations: 843 So. 2d 76; 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 51; 2003 WL 245576Docket: No. 2001-CA-01566-COA

Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; February 3, 2003; Mississippi; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal was filed by John Ballard from a post-divorce judgment in the Webster County Chancery Court regarding modifications to child support and visitation provisions. The chancellor granted some visitation modifications but denied the request to lower child support. Ballard argued that this decision was erroneous, claiming a significant reduction in his income due to a leg injury and alleging that his ex-wife should share travel costs for visitation due to her relocation. The court found the chancellor's decisions were within the discretionary authority, thus affirming the judgment.

Ballard and Cynthia Ballard divorced in 1997, with Cynthia awarded custody of their child, Hunter, and Ballard agreeing to pay $150 weekly in child support plus medical expenses. After Cynthia relocated, Ballard sought to modify child support, citing a material change in circumstances due to a leg injury that impacted his employment. He claimed his income was significantly reduced and his attempt to start a contracting business was unsuccessful. However, he did not provide adequate evidence of his current income, nor did he show efforts to find comparable employment. His only financial documentation was a 2000 tax return indicating a gross income of $67,906 but a low taxable income after deductions. Ballard also reported incurring $30,000 in credit card debt to meet his child support obligations but failed to present evidence for his 2001 income or job search efforts.

The chancellor determined that there was insufficient evidence to justify a reduction in Mr. Ballard's child support obligations. It was found that Mr. Ballard had the potential to earn at least the $40,000 he earned prior to his injury, and lowering the support would undermine the agreed-upon terms. The chancellor noted no significant change in circumstances, attributing any perceived decline in income to Mr. Ballard’s voluntary choice to become self-employed. Mr. Ballard bore the burden of proof to demonstrate a material change that warranted modification, which he failed to do, as his claims of reduced income were unsupported by substantial evidence. His testimony lacked corroboration regarding his income post-injury, and he provided no evidence of his earnings in the eight months leading to the hearing. Additionally, he had acquired assets, such as horses and a trailer, which cast doubt on his claims of financial distress.

The chancellor’s findings are entitled to deference on appeal, given his firsthand evaluation of witness credibility. The court concluded that the chancellor acted within his discretion, affirming that Mr. Ballard retained the ability to earn comparable income to that at the time of divorce. The law stipulates that an obligor cannot modify support obligations if they voluntarily diminish their financial situation in bad faith. Mr. Ballard's decision not to seek alternative income sources to meet his obligations was consistent with the legal standard for bad faith, leading to the affirmation of the chancellor’s ruling.

Mr. Ballard challenged the chancellor's decision not to require Mrs. Schwartz to share his increased travel costs for child visitation following her voluntary relocation with the child. The chancellor determined that requiring the custodial parent to contribute to travel expenses was not in the child's best interest, although he acknowledged that the move constituted a material change in circumstances warranting extended visitation rights for Mr. Ballard. 

Mr. Ballard argued that the separation agreement implied that both parties would maintain proximity, and Mrs. Schwartz's move breached this agreement. However, the court found that while some divorce provisions can be quasi-contractual, matters of child support, custody, and visitation are subject to the chancellor's discretion based on the child's best interests, as outlined in Mississippi law. 

The chancellor has significant discretion in visitation matters, and in this case, he decided that increasing visitation rights was appropriate but requiring the custodial parent to contribute to travel expenses would negatively impact the child's welfare. There was no evidence suggesting Mr. Ballard's visitation rights were hindered by the costs. Consequently, the court affirmed the chancellor’s decision, concluding that it was neither an abuse of discretion nor manifestly erroneous. All costs of the appeal were assigned to Mr. Ballard.