Luther Hackman v. Lucinda Burkes
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-CA-02575-COA
LUTHER HACKMAN
APPELLANT
v.
LUCINDA BURKES
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
10/27/2003
HON. ROBERT L. LANCASTER
LOWNDES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
J. TYSON GRAHAM
EDWIN A. FLINT
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CHANCELLOR SET CHILD SUPPORT
AMOUNT.
AFFIRMED - 09/06/2005
BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶1.
This case arises out of a dispute over the amount of child support the appellant, Luther Hackman,
is required to pay the child’s mother, Lucinda Burkes. On May 7, 1993, the parties’s child, Alexis Shenille
Hackman, was born and Hackman acknowledged the child as his own. On November 18, 1994,
Hackman filed a petition in the Chancery Court of Lowndes County, Mississippi, seeking custody or,
alternatively, visitation with his daughter. The court awarded Hackman visitation rights and also ordered
him to pay an amount of monthly child support payments. The amount of child support to be paid was
calculated based upon his income as a minor league baseball player.
¶2.
Eventually, Hackman signed a contract to play baseball in the major leagues, playing for teams such
as the Arizona Diamondbacks, the St. Louis Cardinals, and the San Diego Padres. After Hackman had
played in the major leagues for a few years, Burkes applied to the court for a modification of the amount
of child support, as Hackman’s income had increased greatly.
¶3.
At the time of the hearing, Hackman had fulfilled all of his contractual time to the teams in the major
league, and had attained free agent status, which based upon past performance, can yield much higher
income. Hackman had yet to sign a new employment contract at the time of the modification hearing, but
felt that he would soon attain a contract with a major league club. Anticipating Hackman’s future
employment with a major league club, the chancellor figured the future amount of child support payments,
based upon the league minimum contracts of $300,000. Unfortunately, Hackman did not obtain a major
league contract as anticipated. Aggrieved by the chancellor’s ruling, Hackman appeals raising the following
issue:
I. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN THE AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT
AWARDED BURKES.
¶4.
Finding no error, we affirm.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ERRED IN THE AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT AWARDED
BURKES.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
Domestic relations matters are reviewed by the substantial/manifest error standard. Stevison v.
Woods, 560 So. 2d 176, 180 (Miss. 1990). “This Court will not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless
2
the chancellor was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Bell
v. Parker, 563 So. 2d 594, 596-97 (Miss. 1990).
DISCUSSION
¶6.
Hackman argues that the chancellor erred in awarding child support based upon income in the
amount of the league minimum of $300,000, as such a determination was speculative in nature. The record
indicates that all parties at the time of the hearing believed that Hackman would soon enter a contract with
a professional baseball organization and would, therefore, be paid at least $300,000 annually. Since this
was agreed, it cannot be stated that the chancellor’s determination was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous,
or that an erroneous legal standard was applied, as is required for reversal under the applicable standard
of review. Additionally, the authority cited by Hackman pertains to the factors a chancellor must consider
in making a determination during a modification hearing, which is inapplicable to the issue presently before
this Court.
¶7.
It should be noted that when the circumstances of the parties have materially changed, the award
of child support may be altered if such a change can be shown. Such an alteration is properly conducted
by a motion for modification in the applicable court. Tingle v. Tingle, 573 So. 2d 1389, 1391 (Miss.
1990). Though the award in the case sub judice may potentially be subject to modification through such
a proceeding, this is not the issue presently before this Court; therefore, we find Hackman’s contentions
to be without merit.
¶8.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND
ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.