Cupit v. Cupit, 07-CA-59456

• Decision Date: 04 April 1990
• Docket Number: No. 07-CA-59456,07-CA-59456
• Citation: 559 So.2d 1035
• Parties: Murray Glynn CUPIT v. Frances Marie Ratcliff CUPIT.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 1035

559 So.2d 1035

Murray Glynn CUPIT v. Frances Marie Ratcliff CUPIT.

No. 07-CA-59456.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 4, 1990.

Michael B. Cupit, Tylertown, for appellant.

Wayne Smith, Liberty, for appellee.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ.

HAWKINS, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

Murray Glynn Cupit appeals from the amount of child support awarded in a divorce decree entered in the Chancery Court of Amite County. Finding the child support award clearly excessive, we reverse and remand for a hearing on this issue.

On May 6, 1987, Frances Cupit filed her complaint for divorce against Murray Cupit. The cause came on for trial on September 1, 1987, in the Chancery Court of Amite County, Hon. R. B. Reeves presiding. On October 13, 1987, a decree was entered granting Frances a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and granting Frances custody and care of the two minor children of the marriage, subject to Murray's visitation rights. In addition, the decree ordered Murray to pay child support of $400.00 per month, plus provide medical insurance for the children. The remaining provisions of the decree dealt with division of property, payment of bills, attorney's fees, conduct of the parties, and income tax dependency exemptions.

On October 15, 1987, Murray filed a motion for reconsideration, new trial, and requesting specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Following Frances' answer, the court entered an order denying the request for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, denied the request for new trial, but granted the motion for reconsideration, limited solely to the question of support awarded.

The matter of reconsideration was submitted to the court on the briefs of the parties, and the lower court ultimately denied relief on May 6, 1988. From this latest order, Murray appeals and challenges the amount of support awarded as well as the chancellor's refusal to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.

WAS THE AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDED EXCESSIVE?

In summary, Murray's argument is that the amount of support awarded for the children was excessive in light of the relevant surrounding circumstances. Frances counters that the chancellor acted well within his discretion. We are required to ascertain from the record what those circumstances were, and whether the court's award was consistent therewith.

In so doing, we are reminded that the process of weighing evidence and arriving at an award of child support is essentially an exercise in fact-finding. Our review, therefore, is significantly constrained. See Morris v. Morris, 541 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Miss.1989); Carpenter v. Carpenter, 519 So.2d 891, 894-95 (Miss.1988); Tedford v. Dempsey, 437 So.2d 410, 417 (Miss.1983); McInnis v. McInnis, 227 So.2d 116, 117 (Miss.1969).

This Court has enumerated several factors which a chancellor should consider in awarding a sum for the care and maintenance of the children, all of which ultimately revolve around our primary concern: the best interest of the child for whose direct benefit the award is made. The chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the child as well as the financial resources and reasonable needs of each parent. Above that, the chancellor is obliged to consider any other relevant fact shown by the evidence. See Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-5-23 (Supp.1989); Carpenter v. Carpenter, 519 So.2d at 894; Tedford v. Dempsey, 437 So.2d at 422; Brabham v. Brabham, 226 Miss. 165, 84 So.2d 147, 153 (1955).

In this case the chancellor ordered Murray Cupit to pay $400.00 per month ($200.00 per child) in child support ¹, to maintain medical and hospitalization insurance on the children, to be responsible for one-half of all reasonable and necessary medical bills not covered by insurance, to consult with Frances about braces for one child, and if they agreed braces were necessary, to pay one-half of the costs thereof, and to pay one-half of the taxes and insurance on the marital home and real property.

Applying the relevant factors to this record, we view the award as clearly excessive. Murray Cupit is a truck driver for Mabry Lumber Company whose gross income at the time of trial was $1,386.00. After automatic deductions for taxes, insurance and retirement, Murray netted $973.60. In addition to the $400.00 per month child support, Murray had other significant expenses. He was ordered to pay one-half of all taxes and insurance on the marital home and 2.3 acres of real property, as well as several debts accumulated during the marriage. Finally, the divorce obviously put Murray in a position of having to incur separate living expenses for himself.

As best as we can ascertain from the record, the following expense figures are uncontradicted, and do not exceed what is reasonable and/or necessary:

(a) $4,359.18 for purchase of a new residence (a "camp" is what Murray calls it) resulting in 42 monthly payments of $103.79;

(b) $3,767.04 for purchase of a 1979 Ford automobile for transportation to and from work each day (a total distance of 50 miles per day), resulting in 24 monthly payments of $156.96 ²;

(c) Murray was ordered by the Court to pay several debts which were accumulated during the marriage. Of these, $559.27 was past due at the time of trial. The remaining debts were on monthly accounts and totaled $2,479.05. All of these accounts were scheduled to be paid in full by March, 1990. ³;

(d) Murray incurred separate living...