Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; July 27, 2004; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
Henry Little initiated a lawsuit against Sandra Davis, his ex-wife, in the Chancery Court of Hinds County to terminate child support payments, as their children had reached the age of majority. Davis counterclaimed for continued support while the children attended college. The trial court granted Little’s summary judgment motion, concluding that both children were over twenty-one and that there was no agreement mandating post-emancipation child support. Davis appealed, arguing that a written agreement existed to maintain child support until further court order and that the court's ruling retroactively applied to the date the youngest child turned twenty-one constituted an ex post facto ruling.
Little and Davis divorced in 1995, with a written agreement establishing custody and child support terms, requiring Little to pay $600 monthly and provide health insurance. Little filed to modify the divorce judgment on March 5, 2003, citing the children's age as grounds to end his obligations. Davis's counterclaim highlighted increased financial needs due to the children's college enrollment. Little contended that a Merrill Lynch account, awarded to Davis, was intended for the children’s education, relieving him of further obligations.
On August 26, 2003, the chancellor granted summary judgment based on the following findings: the children had turned twenty-one, there was no court authority to enforce child support post-emancipation without a written agreement, and no such agreement existed. The ruling relieved Little of child support obligations effective February 18, 2003, the date the youngest child turned twenty-one. The appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo, determining that absent an agreement, a parent is not obligated to support a child after they reach the age of majority. In Mississippi, this age is defined as twenty-one.
No written agreement existed for post-emancipation child support payments between the parties, and the existing custody and maintenance agreement did not include such provisions. Both children have reached the age of twenty-one, confirming that Little is no longer obligated to make child support payments. Davis contends that the chancellor’s ruling, which relieved Little of his payment obligation retroactively to February 18, 2003, constitutes an ex post facto ruling. However, this claim is unfounded, as no payments were due after the children turned twenty-one, which occurred on that date, thereby terminating Little’s obligation before the chancellor's ruling. The chancellor's decision was upheld, and all appeal costs are assigned to the appellant.
