Shelia Barnett Grove v. Charley Guy Agnew
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CA-01190-COA
SHELIA BARNETT GROVE
APPELLANT
v.
CHARLEY GUY AGNEW
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
02/20/2008
HON. JOHN ANDREW HATCHER
LEE COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
CARTER DOBBS, JR.
CHARLEY GUY AGNEW (PRO SE)
CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DENIED MOTION TO MODIFY OR
AMEND FINAL ORDER INCREASING THE
AMOUNT OF CHILD SUPPORT
REVERSED AND REMANDED: 07/28/2009
BEFORE KING, C.J., GRIFFIS AND MAXWELL, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Shelia Barnett Grove (“Shelia”) appeals the chancellor's calculation of an increase in
child support against Charley Guy Agnew (“Charley”). Shelia claims that the chancellor did
not follow Mississippi’s statutory guidelines for child support. Finding error, we reverse and
remand.
FACTS
¶2.
Shelia and Charley have a minor child together. Shelia moved to modify the child
support award based upon a material change in circumstances. The chancellor found that
there had been a material change in circumstances and increased the amount of the child
support award. In addition to his child with Shelia, Charley has a child that resides with him.
The chancellor considered this child when he calculated the child support award for Shelia.
Shelia filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment or alternatively, for a new trial, or for
a correction under Rule 60(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure alleging that the
chancellor did not follow the requirements of Mississippi Code Annotated section 43-19-101
(Rev. 2004) when he considered Charley’s other child in the determination of the child
support award. The chancellor denied Shelia’s motion, and she now appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶3.
Findings of the chancellor, as to domestic relation matters, will not be disturbed or set
aside on appeal unless the decision of the chancellor was manifestly wrong and not supported
by substantial credible evidence, or unless an erroneous legal standard was applied. Pittman
v. Pittman, 652 So. 2d 1105, 1108 (Miss. 1995). For questions of law, our standard of review
is de novo. Harrison County v. Gulfport, 557 So. 2d 780, 784 (Miss. 1990).
ANALYSIS
¶4.
Shelia argues that the chancellor did not follow the requirements of section 43-19-101.
Charley failed to file a brief.
¶5.
Section 43-19-101, which provides the child support award guidelines, states in part:
(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
Due Support
1
Percentage Of Adjusted Gross Income
That Should Be Awarded For Support
14%
2
2
3
4
5 or more
20%
22%
24%
26%
(2) The guidelines provided for in subsection (1) of this section apply unless
the judicial or administrative body awarding or modifying the child support
award makes a written finding or specific finding on the record that the
application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular
case as determined under the criteria specified in Section 43-19-103.
(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;
....
(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 amount of adjusted
gross income.
3
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.
(4) In cases in which the adjusted gross income as defined in this section is
more than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) or less than Five Thousand
Dollars ($5,000.00), the court shall make a written finding in the record as to
whether or not the application of the guidelines established in this section is
reasonable.
Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101(1)-(4).
¶6.
Here, the chancellor divided Charley’s adjusted gross income, which was $54,657.46,
by twenty-six pay periods per year to get Charley’s biweekly adjusted gross income and
multiplied by twenty percent. The chancellor used twenty percent to account for two
children under section 43-19-101, Charley and Shelia’s child and Charley’s other child, and
divided the amount by two. After this calculation, the chancellor awarded Shelia $210.22
biweekly for child support and an additional $24.92 biweekly due to necessary medical
expenses for the child. This award represented approximately ten percent of Charley’s
adjusted gross income, while the statutory percentage of adjusted gross income for one child
is fourteen percent. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101(1).
¶7.
The child support award guidelines are “a rebuttable presumption in all judicial or
administrative proceedings regarding the awarding or modifying of child support awards in
this state.” Id. These percentages “apply unless the judicial or administrative body awarding
or modifying the child support award makes a written finding or specific finding on the
record that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular
case as determined under the criteria specified in [Mississippi Code Annotated section
4
43-19-103 (Rev. 2004)].” Miss. Code Ann. § 43-19-101(2).
¶8.
During the hearing on child support, Shelia’s attorney reminded the chancellor that
he is required to make “a written finding in the record as to whether or not the application
of the guidelines established in [section 43-19-101 are] reasonable” in situations in which the
adjusted gross income is more than $50,000 or less than $5,000. Miss. Code Ann. §
43-19-101(4). Because Charley’s adjusted gross income was greater than $50,000, the
chancellor was required to state on the record whether the guidelines were reasonable. The
chancellor stated that the guidelines were reasonable, but that section 43-19-101(3)(d)
allowed the chancery court to “subtract an amount that it deems appropriate to account for
the needs of” the absent parent’s child if that child resides with the absent parent. The
chancellor said that he deemed it appropriate that child support should be one-half of the
twenty percent as opposed to fourteen percent, the percentage for one child under the
guidelines. The chancellor made no additional findings about the guidelines.
¶9.
Subsection (3)(d) of section 43-19-101 provides the method by which the chancellor
may account for another child residing with the absent parent. “[T]he court may subtract an
amount that it deems appropriate to account for the needs of said child or children” from the
amount of adjusted gross income. Id. Here, the chancellor did not subtract an amount from
the adjusted gross income; rather, he improperly used the guideline percentage for two
children and divided it between the two children.
¶10.
The chancellor did not follow the method provided in section 43-19-101(3)(d) and did
not provide any “written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the
guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in [this] particular case” that would overcome
5
the presumption that guidelines are appropriate under section 43-19-103. Miss. Code Ann.
§ 43-19-101(2). Therefore, we must reverse the chancellor’s judgment and remand so that
the child support award may be calculated in accordance with section 43-19-101, or,
alternatively, the chancellor must justify his failure to do so.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF LEE COUNTY IS
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLEE.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
6
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.
