Bracey v. Bracey, No. 53268

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtBefore PATTERSON; DAN M. LEE; PATTERSON
Citation408 So.2d 1387
PartiesEverett BRACEY v. Betty Jean Galloway BRACEY.
Decision Date03 February 1982
Docket NumberNo. 53268

Page 1387

408 So.2d 1387
Everett BRACEY
v.
Betty Jean Galloway BRACEY.
No. 53268.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Feb. 3, 1982.

Page 1388

Johnson & Mills, Jerry L. Mills, Clinton, for appellant.

Albert Dickens, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and DAN M. LEE, JJ.

DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the Court:

This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of Hinds County wherein Betty Jean Galloway Bracey, petitioner/appellee, sought an increase in child support payments for the parties' four minor children, who were placed in appellee's custody, control and care by a January 15, 1977, final decree for divorce. The divorce decree awarded appellee child support payments in the amount that their children were entitled to receive from social security and Veterans Administration benefits due to their father's total permanent disability. At the conclusion of the hearing, the chancellor found a material change in circumstances had occurred since the rendition of the divorce decree, thereby awarding an increase in support payments in the amount of $100 per month per child. Aggrieved of this finding, Everett Bracey, respondent/appellant, appeals and assigns the following error for review:

No material or substantial change in the circumstances of the parties relative to the after-arising circumstances following the original decree were shown sufficient to justify modification of the original decree.

Everett Bracey and Betty Jean Galloway Bracey were married August 26, 1967. Five children were born during this union. Everett subsequently filed for divorce charging Betty Jean with habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. On June 15, 1977, the Chancery Court of Hinds County granted Everett a divorce on the aforementioned grounds. The final decree awarded Betty Jean permanent care, custody and control of the minor children, and also awarded child support in an amount equal to all monies or benefits Betty Jean and the children were entitled to receive from the Veterans Administration and Social Security Administration, Everett being permanently and totally disabled.

At the time the divorce was granted, Betty Jean was employed by Packard Electric where she netted approximately $249 per week plus $50 withheld for deposit in the credit union. She was subsequently disabled from a ruptured disc, which required her to cease her employment activities. During her period of disability, Betty Jean drew $215 weekly from Packard, which would continue until January 21, 1982, and thereafter at $770 per month for eight years if the disability continued.

Betty Jean subsequently filed her petition to modify the award of child support provided for in the June 1977 decree for divorce. Although she admitted her total monthly income ran about $1,514.50, and her living expenses amounted to approximately $1400 per month, Betty Jean asserted she was unable to provide for the children's necessities. At the time this action was instituted, only four children remained at home. The ages of the children were eighteen, seventeen, fifteen and ten. The oldest of these four children neither worked nor attended school, even though social security benefits would have increased had the youth been scholastically enrolled.

Everett Bracey, who was permanently and totally disabled, received approximately $2466 per month in social security and Veterans Administration benefits. On March 26, 1980, he also received a lump-sum award of $68,000 from the government. Of this lump sum, Everett asserted he had only $79 remaining after paying $18,000 down on a house, lending his oldest child $10,000 to buy a car, giving each child $1000, paying $5000 down on a car, paying his wife $400, and paying $2080 for insurance.

Page 1389

At the conclusion of the hearing, the chancellor found a material change in circumstances had occurred since the rendition of the parties' divorce; therefore, Everett was ordered to pay an additional $100 per child per month, bringing support payments to $990 per month.

Did a material change in circumstances occur subsequent to the rendition of the June 15, 1977, decree so as to warrant an increase in child support payments?

To justify a change or modification of an original decree for divorce, there must be a material change in circumstances of the parties arising subsequent to the rendition of the original decree....

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Hemsley v. Hemsley, No. 92-CA-00423
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 7, 1994
    ...no error in the chancellor's award of periodic Page 912 alimony, retirement benefits and attorney's fees, we affirm. Bracey v. Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387 (Miss.1982); Savell v. Savell, 290 So.2d 621 (Miss.1974); See Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-23." Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, 841 I. THE COURT......
  • Hockaday v. Hockaday, No. 92-CA-00458
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 20, 1994
    ...alimony a chancellor should consider a substantial increase in earnings by one party subsequent to the decree. See also Bracey v. Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387, 1389 (Miss.1982). The Spradling Court went on to say that the increase in the husband's earnings must also be considered. In reversing th......
  • Lawrence v. Lawrence, No. 90-CA-0305
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 23, 1991
    ...apply to Ben as well as Kim. They are key factors that seem to be recognized with something akin to judicial notice. Bracey v. Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Miss.1982); Tedford v. Dempsey, 437 So.2d 410, 419 (Miss.1983). The record is sparse as to Ben, but on remand, the facts and his needs......
  • Banks v. Banks, No. 57083
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 19, 1987
    ...arising subsequent to rendition of the original decree, the chancellor may change or modify the divorce decree. Bracey v. Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387, 1389 (Miss.1982), Shaeffer v. Shaeffer, 370 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1979). See also, Miss Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-23 Here, Faye Harmon Banks testified t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Hemsley v. Hemsley, No. 92-CA-00423
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • July 7, 1994
    ...no error in the chancellor's award of periodic Page 912 alimony, retirement benefits and attorney's fees, we affirm. Bracey v. Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387 (Miss.1982); Savell v. Savell, 290 So.2d 621 (Miss.1974); See Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-23." Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, 841 I. THE COURT......
  • Hockaday v. Hockaday, No. 92-CA-00458
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 20, 1994
    ...alimony a chancellor should consider a substantial increase in earnings by one party subsequent to the decree. See also Bracey v. Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387, 1389 (Miss.1982). The Spradling Court went on to say that the increase in the husband's earnings must also be considered. In reversing th......
  • Lawrence v. Lawrence, No. 90-CA-0305
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 23, 1991
    ...apply to Ben as well as Kim. They are key factors that seem to be recognized with something akin to judicial notice. Bracey v. Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387, 1390 (Miss.1982); Tedford v. Dempsey, 437 So.2d 410, 419 (Miss.1983). The record is sparse as to Ben, but on remand, the facts and his needs......
  • Banks v. Banks, No. 57083
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 19, 1987
    ...arising subsequent to rendition of the original decree, the chancellor may change or modify the divorce decree. Bracey v. Bracey, 408 So.2d 1387, 1389 (Miss.1982), Shaeffer v. Shaeffer, 370 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1979). See also, Miss Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-23 Here, Faye Harmon Banks testified t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT