Wanda A. Williams v. James Smith, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CA-01895-COA
WANDA A. WILLIAMS
APPELLANT
v.
JAMES SMITH, JR.
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:
APPELLEE
12/22/2003
HON. SANFORD R. STECKLER
JACKSON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
WANDA A. WILLIAMS (PRO SE)
JAMES SMITH, JR. (PRO SE)
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DISMISSED COMPLAINT FOR CONTEMPT
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
AFFIRMED - 12/06/2005
BEFORE KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
BRIDGES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
In April 16, 1988, the Chancery Court of Jackson County, Mississippi signed an order of filiation
with provisions for visitation and child support that arose from a child the two had together. Williams
applied to have James Smith pay for back child support and in 1992 a Fulton County Georgia office
ordered Smith to pay child support arrears. On June 13, 2000 Williams filed a petition to cite Smith with
contempt. The Jackson County Chancery Court ordered Smith to pay arrears for 1988 through 1992 but
found that it lack jurisdiction for anything after 1992. Williams appeals the court’s finding that it lacked
jurisdiction.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2.
On January 28, 1985, James E. Smith , Jr. and Wanda Williams had a son, James Edward
Blakemore. At the time of birth, both parties resided in Jackson County, Mississippi. On April 15, 1988,
the parties entered an “Agreed Order of Filiation” in the Chancery Court of Jackson County.
The
agreement included an amount the court required Smith to pay in child support of thirty-five dollars per
week. The order also included provisions to raise the amount to forty dollars on the child’s sixth birthday
and forty-five dollars on his twelfth birthday.
¶3.
In May of 1991, Williams moved to Texas in order to attend law school and took the child with
her. At no point while in Texas did Williams change her primary residence or register to vote in Texas.
While in Texas, Smith failed to pay child support as ordered. At this time Smith had moved to Georgia.
For that reason Williams used the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) to force
Smith to comply by filing with an office in Austin, Texas. The Georgia Office of Ancillary Domestic Legal
Services filed a URESA petition against Smith causing him to sign a temporary order agreeing to pay $100
a month in child support and $25 a month arrears payment.
¶4.
On June 12, 2000, Williams filed a contempt motion against Smith for failure to pay child support.
In 1997 Mississippi adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) replacing URESA. The
chancery court found that it retained jurisdictionfrom April 15, 1988, through March 4, 1992. On that day
the Superior Court of Fulton County in Atlanta, Georgia took jurisdiction of the parties pursuant to
URESA. Furthermore, the chancery court found it lacked jurisdiction because Williams failed to follow
the statutory provisions set forth pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated § 93-25-83 which required
2
Williams to register the Georgia orders for enforcement in Mississippi. Williams appealed this issue and
Smith failed to supply a brief in support of the decision.
ANALYSIS
¶5.
The courts scope of review is limited by the substantial evidence/ manifest error rule in domestic
relations cases. Samples v. Davis, 904 So.2d 1061, 1064 (¶9)(Miss. 2004) “Our standard of review is
clear. ‘Chancellors are vested with broad discretion, and this Court will not disturb the chancellor's findings
unless the court's actions were manifestly wrong, the court abused its discretion, or the court applied an
erroneous legal standard.’” Lowery v. Mardis, 867 So.2d 1053, 1057( ¶15)(Miss. Ct. App. 2004)
quoting (Mixon v. Mixon, 724 So.2d 956, 959(¶ 8)(Miss. Ct. App.1998). If the chancellor’s findings are
supported by substantial evidence then the Court does not have the authority to change even if they would
have ruled differently at trial. Smith v. Bell, 876 So.2d 1087, 1090(¶9)(Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “An
appellate court reviews jurisdictional issues de novo by examining the facts set out in the pleadings and
exhibits to determine the propriety of the proceedings.” American Cable Corp. v. Trilogy
Communications, Inc., 754 So.2d 545, 549(¶ 7)(Miss. Ct. App.2000). “Failure of an appellee to file
a brief is tantamount to confession of error and will be accepted as such unless the reviewing court can say
with confidence, after considering the record and brief of appealing party, that there was no error."
Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Dev. Corp., 458 So.2d 714, 717 (Miss.1984)
¶6.
Williams contends that the requirements of Mississippi Code Annotated § 93-25-83 merely create
a framework for enforcing one State’s support order in another jurisdiction. Williams further argues that
only the issuing state can modify the order as long as it maintains continuing exclusive jurisdiction. Williams
cites to Mississippi Code Annotated § 93-25-17(1) that states, “A tribunal of this state that has issued a
support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
3
to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling order and . . . or the child for whose benefit
the support order is issued.”
¶7.
However that same statute also states, “If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support
order pursuant to this chapter or to a law substantially similar to this chapter which modifies a child support
order of a tribunal of the state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of
the tribunal of the other state.” Miss. Code Ann. § 93-25-17
(3). The chancery court found that the Georgia Superior Court issued an order and took exclusive
jurisdiction and Mississippi courts accordingly should recognize the jurisdiction of the other state. ¶8.
Williams cites to Thrift v. Thrift, 760 So.2d 732, 735(¶12) (Miss.2000) which states, “merely
filing a URESA action in another state and participating in the URESA proceedings in the other state does
not subject the Mississippi resident to the other state's jurisdiction.” In Thrift, the court found that North
Carolina never had jurisdiction to alter the order of child support and the orders entered in North Carolina
were only effective in North Carolina. The Court based this on the fact that both the ex-wife and child
remained in Mississippi and that the ex-wife never filed written consent to the North Carolina orders.
¶9.
However, in this case, Smith has not filed to enforce the Georgia Superior Court’s order as in the
Thrift case. Williams did not file written consent to the Georgia order but she did operate under its order
for several years. Now, Williams seeks to undo the Georgia order and argues that it never had jurisdiction
in the first place. The chancery court found that the Georgia court not only had jurisdiction at the time but
retains jurisdiction to this day due to Williams failure to register the order in Mississippi to retain
Mississippi’s jurisdiction.
¶10.
In Watkins v. Watkins, 802 So.2d 145 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) the husband filed a petition in
Mississippi pursuant to the UIFSA to modify and enforce a Georgia support order. Since the wife resided
4
in Georgia the court determined that Georgia retained jurisdiction of the support order and affirmed the
lower court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. This case similarly involved a Georgia support order and
a Mississippi petitioner. The party that the order demanded support from also still resides in Georgia
leaving Georgia as the state with jurisdiction over the Georgia support order. Accordingly, the chancery
court ruled correctly by determining that Mississippi lacked jurisdiction to hear Williams contempt order
regarding anything after 1992.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
5
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.
