Bryant v. Bryant

• Decision Date: 29 September 2022
• Docket Number: 2020-CT-00883-SCT
• Citation: 348 So.3d 309
• Parties: Kenneth Peyton BRYANT v. Jennifer Hart BRYANT
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

348 So.3d 309

Kenneth Peyton BRYANT

v.Jennifer Hart BRYANT

NO. 2020-CT-00883-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

September 29, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JERRY WESLEY HISAW, Southaven

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: CHARLES E. WINFIELD, ASHLYN BROWN MATTHEWS, Starkville

EN BANC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

KITCHENS, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. The parties had obtained a divorce in the Chancery Court of DeSoto County in 2016. On June 3, 2020, Jennifer Bryant filed a motion in which she asked the chancellor, pursuant to Section 17 of the property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the divorce decree, to determine which school the three minor children should attend: Hernando or Lake Cormorant. The father, Kenneth Bryant, wanted the children to go to school at Lake Cormorant because his wife, Alicia Bryant, was a teacher there. The chancellor decided that it was in the children's best interest to go to school in the Hernando public school district.

¶2. Kenneth Bryant appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor's decision. Bryant v. Bryant , No. 2020-CA-00883-COA, ––– So.3d –––––, ––––, 2021 WL 5802520, at *4 (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2021). The Court of Appeals determined that the language of the property settlement agreement authorized the chancellor to reevaluate the matter and that "[a] property settlement agreement cannot deprive the court of its authority to modify support and educational needs of a child." Id.

¶3. We agree with the Court of Appeals. Therefore, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

¶4. The Court of Appeals related the facts as follows:

Jennifer and Kenneth were married from August 2, 2009, until their divorce (based on irreconcilable differences) on March 30, 2016. Three children were born during their marriage: the eldest child was born in 2011, and twins were born in 2014. The divorce decree incorporated a Property, Child Support, and Child Custody Agreement (PSA) that set forth stipulations as to all matters concerning the minor children.

The PSA provided that Jennifer and Kenneth agreed to share legal and physical custody of the children, and there was a specific provision regarding the children's education and where they could attend school. The PSA stipulated that if they could not agree about major decisions concerning the children, Kenneth had final decision-making authority. There was also a clause stating that the PSA could be submitted to the chancellor for "approval or disapproval."

Kenneth and Jennifer had previously amended the terms of the PSA. On July 26, 2016, Jennifer filed a petition for contempt alleging that Kenneth had incessantly harassed her and the family since the entry of the divorce decree and that he threatened to withhold the minor children from her if she did not meet his demands. Kenneth responded, alleging that Jennifer had not provided him with a copy of her drug test results as commanded in the divorce decree. Additionally, he alleged that Jennifer denied him the right to speak with the children when they were in her custody. On May 30, 2017, the parties entered into an "Agreed Order Modifying Visitation" altering the parties’ weekly periods of custody and limiting their means of communications to text messages and emails. This modification did not disturb the parties’ joint legal custody or the terms of the children's private school and child care.

In 2020, when the actions giving rise to this appeal occurred, Kenneth and his wife Alicia, a teacher in Lake Cormorant, lived in Hernando, as did Jennifer and the children. Per the PSA, the eldest child had been enrolled in Magnolia Heights, a private school. The twins were to start kindergarten in the fall of 2020. A few months prior to this time, Kenneth informed Jennifer that he would be enrolling all the children in the Lake Cormorant public school system. In keeping with the PSA, Jennifer filed a motion requesting that the chancellor order the children to attend Hernando public schools.

Bryant , ––– So.3d at –––––, 2021 WL 5802520, at *1 (footnote omitted).

¶5. On July 20, 2020, a hearing on the motion was held. At the hearing, Kenneth Bryant testified that he wanted the children to attend school at Lake Cormorant because that was where his current wife, Alicia Bryant, was working as a teacher. He testified also that he did not have any personal knowledge of Jennifer Bryant's financial situation. During the hearing, Kenneth Bryant maintained that his first choice for the school he wanted his children to attend was Magnolia Heights. Jennifer Bryant testified that "[Kenneth Bryant] said that he could not afford Magnolia Heights either" and that he was enrolling the children at Lake Cormorant. Also, she presented the state rankings of the schools, which showed that Hernando's schools were ranked significantly higher than Lake Cormorant's schools. Regarding the parties’ ability to pay, the chancellor determined that there had been sufficient evidence to trigger the language in the property settlement agreement because the mother testified that the father "said he said he could not afford Magnolia Heights, either, which implies that she couldn't and he basically said he didn't think she could and so that's the reason he wasn't even considering Magnolia. So I'm going to consider ... it already being triggered."

¶6. After hearing all of the testimony, the chancellor decided that

Quite honestly, both [parents] have some very valid points about each of your choices about the schools; however, the [c]ourt just feels like it's going to be in the children's best interest to go to school where they live, to go to school in Hernando. So I'm going to rule that the children get enrolled in Hernando school.

"At the request of Kenneth's attorney, the chancellor also ordered that if Kenneth is able to afford private school for all three children and if both parents decide that would be in the children's best interests, Kenneth would be solely responsible for all costs associated with them attending private school." Bryant , ––– So.3d at –––––, 2021 WL 5802520, at *2.

¶7. The father appealed, arguing that "the chancellor erred in ordering that his three minor children must attend school in the Hernando school district or, in the alternative, that he must pay for private school." Id. He "argue[d] that the chancellor's ruling to send all three children to Hernando elementary school contradicts the language in the PSA that gave him the final decision-making authority should he and Jennifer disagree on any major life decisions affecting the children." Id. ––– So.3d at –––––, 2021 WL 5802520, at *3. The Court of Appeals determined that

[t]he [property settlement agreement] clearly gave the chancellor the authority to weigh in on all matters covered therein—specifically where the children attended school. A property settlement agreement cannot deprive the court of its authority to modify support and educational needs of a child. The decision-making power afforded Kenneth in this instance cannot and does not usurp that of the chancellor.

Id. ––– So.3d at –––––, 2021 WL 5802520, at *4. Presiding Judge Wilson authored a dissent, joined in part by Chief Judge Barnes, saying that he would reverse the chancellor's decision because Kenneth Bryant was the final decision maker and "was entitled to decide where the children should attend school, and there was no legal basis for the chancellor to order the children to attend school in the Hernando school district." Id. ––– So.3d at –––––, 2021 WL 5802520, at *5 (Wilson, P.J., dissenting).

¶8. Kenneth Bryant filed a petition for writ of certiorari , which was granted by this Court. He argues that the decision of the Court of Appeals conflicts with precedent and that it "was made without addressing the threshold issue of whether there was any legal basis to differ from the Father's decision making that was specifically provided for in the parties’ divorce decree." He challenges also the chancellor's order requiring him to pay all of the private school tuition if he wished for the children to attend Magnolia Heights. He claims that the Court of Appeals failed to address this issue and that the chancellor committed reversible error by entering the order because "there was insufficient proof either way of the parties’ ability or inability to pay private school tuition."

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶9. We have held that "[w]hen this Court reviews a chancellor's decision in a case involving divorce and all related issues, our scope of review is limited by the substantial evidence/manifest error rule." Yelverton v. Yelverton , 961 So. 2d 19, 24 (Miss. 2007) (citing R.K. v. J.K. , 946 So. 2d 764, 772 (Miss. 2007) ). "However, a property settlement agreement is a contractual obligation." Harris v. Harris , 988 So. 2d 376, 378 (Miss. 2008) (citing East v. East , 493 So. 2d 927, 931-32 (Miss. 1986) ). Questions of law, such as contract interpretations, are reviewed de novo . Id. (citing Warwick v. Gautier Util. Dist. , 738 So. 2d 212, 215 (Miss. 1999) ).

DISCUSSION

¶10. Two relevant parts of the property settlement agreement are before us: Section 11 and Section 17. Section 11 pertains to custody and visitation of the children and says that the parents "shall share joint legal and physical custody of the children[;] ... however, in the event that the parties are unable to agree upon major life decisions affecting the child/children, the Father shall have the final decision making authority." Section 17 is titled "Private school/child care" and provides that

Both the Mother and Father agree that the [eldest] minor child ... is currently enrolled at Magnolia Heights School. Each party shall be responsible for one-half (1/2) of the costs of tuition and extra curricular costs for said minor child. Further, each party shall be responsible for uniforms and school lunches for the minor child while in their care.

Both parties agree that when it is time for the twins to attend 5 year old kindergarten, if either party is

...