Grace v. Department of Human Services, 95-CA-00618-SCT

Decision Date06 February 1997
Docket NumberNo. 95-CA-00618-SCT,95-CA-00618-SCT
Citation687 So.2d 1232
PartiesWillie GRACE, Jr. v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Beauchamp Jones, Meridian, for Appellant.

Syria Sturdivant, Meridian, for Appellee.

Before DAN LEE, C.J., and PITTMAN and MILLS, JJ.

PITTMAN, Justice, for the Court.

Willie Grace, Jr., appeals the amount of a child support award granted by the County Court of Lauderdale County. The county court determined the amount based on Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101. The county court calculated Grace's adjusted gross income, then gave him credit for one child living in his home, readjusting the gross income from which child support should be based upon. From that amount, the county court judge calculated that the monthly child support should be 14 per cent of the new adjusted gross income (AGI) per month. Grace appeals this amount.

Grace assigns three alleged errors for this Court's review, two of which merit discussion. Grace contends that the lower court erred by not multiplying his AGI by the statutorily prescribed 22 per cent for three children and then dividing by the total number of children, rather than multiplying his income by 14% for one child due support. He further alleges that he should have been given credit for support of two children living in his home in addition to the child who was the subject of the lawsuit. Because we find that the lower court erred by not granting Grace credit for both children residing in his home, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the award.

Johnnie Mae West, while married to Willie Andrew West, had a sexual relationship with Willie Grace, Jr., by which a child, Donovan, was conceived. Grace was also married. At the time, Grace and his wife had a daughter who was ten years of age. Almost immediately after Donovan was conceived, Grace and his wife conceived a second child, Willie James Grace, III, born almost seven months after Donovan. West filed an application with the Department of Human Services (DHS) for child support services. DHS obtained West's right to bring a paternity action 1 and for collection of child support.

The trial court found that Grace was the natural father of West's child, Donovan. The court further found that Grace: (1) should pay child support based on an adjusted gross income of $30, 473.55; (2) should receive credit for one child; (3) that with credit for one child, the adjusted gross income of Grace is $26,207.25; (4) that the monthly adjusted gross income of Grace is $2,183.94, and the monthly child support should be figured using the 14 per cent equaling $305. 75 per month.

Grace appeals this amount.

We have held that "the process of weighing evidence and arriving at an award of child support is a fact finding exercise which significantly restrains [our] review ..." and that the trial judge's decision should "not be overturned ... unless he was manifestly in error or manifestly abused his discretion...." Dunn v. Dunn, 609 So.2d 1277, 1285 (Miss.1992); see also Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 933 (Miss.1994).

Grace maintains that the lower court erred in its application of the child support award guidelines enumerated in Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101. In pertinent part that statute states:

§ 43-19-101. Child support award guidelines.

(1) The following child support award guidelines shall be a rebuttable presumption in all judicial or administrative proceedings regarding the awarding or modifying of child support awards in this state:

                       Number of Children        Percentage of Adjusted Gross Income
                          Due Support            That Should Be Awarded For Support
                              1                                  14%
                              2                                  20%
                              3                                  22%
                              4                                  24%
                              5 or more                          26%
                

(3) The amount of "adjusted gross income" as that term is used in subsection (1) of this section shall be calculated as follows:

(a) Determine gross income from all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available to the absent parent including but not limited to, the following: wages and salary income; income from self-employment; income from commissions; income from investments, including dividends, interest income and income on any trust account or property; absent parent's portion of any joint income of both parents; workers' compensation disability, unemployment, annuity and retirement benefits, including an individual retirement account (IRA); any other payments made by any person, private entity, federal or state government or any unit of local government; alimony; any income earned from an interest in or from inherited property; any other form of earned income; and gross income shall exclude any monetary benefits derived from a second household, such as income of the absent parent's current spouse;

(b) Subtract the following legally mandated deductions

....

(c) If the absent parent is subject to an existing court order for another child or children, subtract the amount of that court-ordered support;

(d) If the absent parent is also the parent of another child or other children residing with him, then the court may subtract an amount that it deems appropriate to account for the needs of said child or children;

(e) Compute the total annual amount of adjusted gross income based on paragraphs (a) through (d), then divide this amount by twelve (12) to obtain the monthly child support award.

Upon conclusion of the calculation of paragraphs (a) through (e), multiply the monthly amount of adjusted gross income by the appropriate percentage designated in subsection (1) to arrive at the amount of the monthly child support award.

This case boils down to the role Grace's children living with him play in the equation to determine the award of child support to Donovan's mother. Grace contends that the proper equation is to determine the AGI of Grace, multiply it by the percentage corresponding to the total number of children--both inside and outside of his household family--and divide that result by three. DHS argues that the percentage of Grace's income to be considered for the support of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Thomas Truck Lease, Inc. v. Lee County, 95-CT-00745-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1999
    ...must not give violence to the words, but must be a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the legislature. Grace v. Department of Human Serv., 687 So.2d 1232, 1234 (Miss.1997). The majority concludes that, if Mississippi is the domiciliary State for the vehicles in question, then we can......
  • Bullock v. Bullock, 95-CA-00636-SCT
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1997
  • Bailey v. Bailey
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 10, 1998
    ...calculating child support, the deduction is purely discretionary. Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101(3)(d) (1993). In Grace v. Department of Human Services, 687 So.2d 1232 (Miss.1997), cited by the dissent, this Court held that under the statute the chancellor should consider "children born after t......
  • Turner v. Turner
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1999
    ...the amount of child support Richard should pay to Bonnie." In support of this argument, Richard Turner cites Grace v. Department of Human Services, 687 So.2d 1232 (Miss.1997). ¶ 20. In Grace, the supreme court held that under the statute the chancellor should consider "children born after 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