Reid v. Reid

6 Citing cases

  1. Powell v. Powell

    No. 2022-CA-01258-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2025)

    "Because [of] the high level of deference this Court must show toward any findings of fact made by a chancellor, we will only review for manifest error or abuse of discretion." Reid v. Reid, 998 So.2d 1032, 1037 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). "The word 'manifest,' as defined in this context, means 'unmistakable, clear, plain, or indisputable.'" Id.

  2. Davis v. Davis

    222 So. 3d 1101 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    When parents are given custody of separate children, a chancellor may require the parent with the higher income to pay only the difference in the child support that each custodial parent owes to the other. Reid v. Reid , 998 So.2d 1032, 1035 (¶¶ 17–18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).The chancellor found Greg's criminal convictions in 2014 to be a substantial and material change in circumstances:

  3. Ford v. Miss. Dep't of Human Servs.

    158 So. 3d 1241 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    ¶ 12. “In cases involving child support, we afford the chancellor considerable discretion, and his findings will not be reversed unless he was manifestly in error or abused his discretion.” Reid v. Reid, 998 So.2d 1032, 1036 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Southerland v. Southerland, 875 So.2d 204, 208 (¶ 12) (Miss.2004) ).

  4. Ford v. Miss. Dep't of Human Servs.

    NO. 2013-CP-01770-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2013)

    " The MDHS further notes that Ford failed to provide evidence that he suffered an involuntary reduction in income; therefore, the chancery court was not obligated to reduce the child support based on the evidence, or lack thereof, provided by Ford. ¶12. "In cases involving child support, we afford the chancellor considerable discretion, and his findings will not be reversed unless he was manifestly in error or abused his discretion." Reid v. Reid, 998 So. 2d 1032, 1036 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Southerland v. Southerland, 875 So. 2d 204, 208 (¶12) (Miss. 2004)).

  5. Sturdavant v. Sturdavant

    53 So. 3d 838 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    However, we observe that "the central issue to periodic alimony modification is whether there has been a material change in circumstances subsequent to the decree of divorce and not a balancing of the Armstrong factors[.]" Reid v. Reid., 998 So.2d 1032, 1041 (¶ 23) (Miss.Ct.App. 2008). Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, • 1280(Miss.

  6. George v. George

    2008 CA 1041 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 21 times

    Our standard of review of the chancellor's award of alimony is limited and "will not be altered on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error." Reid v. Reid, 998 So.2d 1032, 1036 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App. 2008) (citing Crowe v. Crowe, 641 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Miss. 1994)). However, questions of law are reviewed under a de novo standard.