February 2018 | No. 2016-CA-00844-SCT (Miss. 2018)

McKinney v. Hamp (Mississippi 2018)

A supersedeas bond, authorized by Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a), will not stay enforcement of an order for prospective, monthly child support pending appeal. A signing bonus for a parent-athlete is part of the parent’s gross income for child support purposes. A court has the discretion to modify an order back to the date of the event justifying the modification. The father, an NFL player, appealed several terms of a child support order: the court’s jurisdiction over a contempt motion, the income determination, and the effective date of the modification. Rule 8(a) allows for a stay of enforcement on a money judgment if an appellant posts a bond in an amount set out in the Rule. The Supreme Court found that enforcement of a child support order cannot be stayed using this rule because the payments are prospective and not a money judgment. Instead, a parent must request a stay under Rule 8(b) and obtain court permission. The Supreme Court also found that the signing bonus was properly included as income to the father. The bonus, even though paid in one year, reasonably available to the father and was considered part of his compensation package. The Supreme Court also found the chancery court had the ability to modify the support back to the date of the signing of the NFL contract.

Sign up to stay up-to-date with news and resources.

Sign Up

YoungWilliams does not endorse the reports or opinions expressed by non-YoungWilliams authors, nor do we endorse the entities that initially released or published the materials posted on our website.