William V. Williams, III v. Jennifer Marie Horner Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CA-01274-COA
WILLIAM V. WILLIAMS, III
v.
JENNIFER MARIE HORNER WILLIAMS (NOW HALL)
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
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:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
07/05/2000
HON. KENNIE E. MIDDLETON
ADAMS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
ROBERT C. LATHAM
A. HOLMES STURGEON III
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION INCREASED TO $660
PER MONTH.
AFFIRMED - 12/11/2001
1/9/2002; denied 3/12/2002
4/2/2002
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. William V. Williams, III, appeals the final order of the chancery court increasing his child support
obligation from $302 per month to $660 per month. He argues that since there was no proof of a material
change in circumstances, that no new support obligation should have been imposed. We find that the change
was entered by consent and affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2. William V. Williams, III and Jennifer Marie Horner Williams Hall were divorced in 1998. They had one
child, Trevor Paul Lee Williams, born in 1994. Under the original divorce decree, Williams was to pay child
support of $302 per month.
¶3. On September 24, 1999, Hall filed a complaint for modification. The complaint sought an increase in
child support, contempt for failure to reimburse Hall within thirty days for certain expenses, and
determination of which party would be liable for Trevor's college education. A one day hearing was held at
which only Williams and Hall testified. Williams testified that he had in fact received a raise of approximately
$800 per month. When asked whether he believed that expenses associated with raising the child had
increased, Williams agreed that they likely had, although Hall had yet to supply him with an estimate of
financial needs despite repeated requests to do so.
¶4. At the conclusion of Williams's testimony, the chancellor requested that both counsel accompany him
into the jury room where an off-the-record discussion occurred. Once proceedings recommenced on the
record Hall was called as a witness by her counsel. At that time, Hall's counsel stated the following:
Now, I want to let you know that at this juncture we have resolved the child support issue as we've
already announced to the Court in private as well as the Court publicly in a moment for the figure of
$660 per month.
So, the only thing that remains at issue at this point is anything you [Hall] may have that might help the
Judge in making a decision about how the Judge may delineate and nail down how y'all are going to
handle summer visitation.
No objection or comment to this announcement was made by Williams.
¶5. In the chancellor's final order, he found that "since the date of said Order of Divorce there has been a
change of circumstances in the income of William V. Williams" and that Williams' monthly child support
obligation would be $660 per month. Certain other issues were addressed in that order that are not
contested on appeal.
DISCUSSION
¶6. Williams argues that the chancellor erred in modifying child support because there was no proof of a
material change in circumstances, and that written findings as to the reasonableness of applying the statutory
child support award guidelines were needed because his income was greater than $50,000. Miss. Code
Ann. § 43-19-101(4) (Rev. 2000).
¶7. These arguments need not be addressed. We find that what is being appealed is an agreed modification
to child support. As previously related, Hall's counsel announced after an off-record conference that the
parties had reached agreement on the issue of child support modification. Williams's counsel indicated no
disagreement with that announcement. Once the parties agreed to the new support amount, there was no
need for Hall to demonstrate a material change in circumstances or for the chancellor to make any specific
findings of fact.
¶8. Williams argues that this is not a fair characterization of what occurred. At the unrecorded conference
the chancellor revealed his decision to increase child support. Therefore, Williams had no option except to
concede the issue. We accept the accuracy of counsel's recollection of what occurred. Yet if the issue was
to be preserved, there needed to be an objection on the record to what counsel now argues was a
premature ruling before sufficient evidence justifying a modification had been heard.
¶9. An appeals court can only consider what is in the record, including the evidence presented and the
objections properly made. In re V.R., 725 So. 2d 241, 245 (Miss. 1998). Once the announcement by
Hall's attorney occurred, Williams could have noted for the record that the chancellor had in the conference
ruled that he was going to increase child support. It could have been clarified on the record whether the
chancellor preempted any further presentation of evidence on the relevant considerations. At some stage
during that explanation, counsel should have indicated that he objected to this ruling. Instead, the record
contains no objection, and therefore nothing is presented to us for review.
¶10. Since the record indicates no objection to the setting of the new child support amount, there was no
need for evidence of a material change in circumstances or for the chancellor to make findings regarding the
propriety of applying the statutory guidelines. We find no error.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADAMS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
