Price v. Snowden

3 Citing cases

  1. Moreland v. Spears

    368 So. 3d 333 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023)

    This Court has held that "[a]cting on the advice of counsel does not excuse a person from following an order, but it may be considered in determining whether there was willful contempt." Price v. Snowden , 187 So. 3d 159, 165 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Cossitt v. Cossitt , 975 So. 2d 274, 279 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ); see alsoMcKnight v. Jenkins , 155 So. 3d 730, 732 (¶7) (Miss. 2013) ("[A] party's reliance on its counsel's advice is sufficient to make a party's violation not willful or deliberate."); R.K. v. J.K. , 946 So. 2d 764, 778 (¶42) (Miss. 2007) (finding no manifest error in the chancellor's determination that a party was not in contempt when he acted in accordance with his attorney's advice).

  2. Kelley v. Zitzelberger

    342 So. 3d 499 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    In Kelley, we affirmed the denial of a request for a reduction in child support based in part on evidence that the payor and his current wife recently had purchased new cars and a new home.

    The interest of children weighs in the judicial mind far heavier than those of either parent.’ " Price v. Snowden , 187 So. 3d 159, 164 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Cumberland v. Cumberland , 564 So. 2d 839, 847 (Miss. 1990) ). Because self-help modifications are not desirable or proper, the chancery court was under no obligation to enforce the parties’ oral agreement to reduce Morgan's child support.

  3. Jefferson v. Jefferson

    327 So. 3d 1085 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 5 times
    In Jefferson v. Jefferson, 327 So. 3d 1085, 1088 n.1 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021), we noted that in Edwards v. Edwards-Barker, 875 So. 2d 1126, 1128 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), this Court held that "[i]n matters of child custody and support, … in the absence of an appellee's brief, our practice is to make a special effort to review the record for support for affirmance."

    ¶15. This exact issue was addressed in Price v. Snowden , 187 So. 3d 159 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). There, this Court held that a father serving in the United States Navy was obligated to impute his basic allowable subsistence (BAS) as well as his basic allowable housing (BAH) entitlements to his gross income.