 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wesson v. Wesson6/11/2002
. Id. Thus, the child had not been freed from his parents's care although he did work full-time and pay some of his own expenses.
. In Andrews v. Williams, 723 So. 2d 1175 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998), this Court found that the son had not become emancipated when upon graduating from high school he moved in with his dad, took a job , then two months later quit his job and moved back in with his mom since he did not make enough money to support himself. Andrews, 723 So. 2d at ( ). The supreme court found that although the son met the technical requirements for emancipation pursuant to statute, he was unable to support himself independently, and he relied on his mother to pay necessary expenses and to manage his finances. Id.
. In the present case, Chi testified that he moved in with a friend and worked full-time, but this arrangement only lasted for a month before he had to move back in with his mom because he could not afford to support himself. Therefore, like Caldwell and Andrews, although Chi possibly met the technical statutory requirements for emancipation, he was unable to support himself on his own, thus defeating this requirement for emancipation. Chi testified that his dad gave him money for personal trips, his father bought clothes for him, his father gave him a truck and took care of the vehicle's upkeep, that his father and mother helped pay for college expenses, and that his grandmother occasionally gave him money for meals; thus, we cannot find that he was emancipated for child support purposes. We find that the chancellor had this evidence before her as to allow her to make a discretionary decision concerning Chi's emancipation and concerning any reimbursement to which David could be entitled due to Chi's emancipation prior to the chancellor's finding of such in November 2000. There is no merit to this issue.
. Having found no merit to any issue David raises with this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the chancellor on this matter.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRENTISS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS AFFIRMED. STATUTORY DAMAGES AND INTEREST ARE AWARDED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., THOMAS, MYERS AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR. BRIDGES, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY IRVING, J. CHANDLER, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
BRIDGES, J., DISSENTING
. According to the Mississippi Supreme Court, determinations of alimony must be supported by appropriate findings of fact. Sandlin v. Sandlin, 699 So. 2d 1198, 1204 (Miss. 1997). The chancellor erred by not providing any findings of fact to support the award of periodic rehabilitative alimony in the form of mortgage payments. I would remand this case that the chancellor may provide appropriate findings of fact supporting her decision to award periodic rehabilitative alimony.
. This Court is not tasked with the responsibility of determining the contents of the record; rather, that responsibility lies with the trial court, which is in the best position to ascertain the facts of the case, as they are all brought to light in front of it. The chancellor must articulate specific facts to support her decision, so that this Court may properly scrutinize the appeal. Flechas v. Flechas, 724 So. 2d 948, 954 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).
. Consequently, although I concur with my colleagues in affirming the child support award and regarding David Wesson's potential workers' compensation claim, I would remand for findings of fact supporting the alimony award.
IRVING, J., JOINS THIS SEPARATE OPINION.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|