BEVERLY B. EVANS, APPELLANT
ROBERT D. EVANS, APPELLEE
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/09/2012. TRIAL JUDGE: HON.W. ASHLEY HINES. TRIAL COURT SET ASIDE WRITS OF GARNISHMENT.
FOR APPELLANT: S. DAVID NORQUIST.
FOR APPELLEE: RABUN JONES.
BEFORE LEE, C.J., ROBERTS AND JAMES, JJ. IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR. CARLTON, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1. Beverly and Robert Evans were divorced in 1998. Robert sought modification of child support, which the chancellor granted in a May 13, 2009 order and clarified in a July 28, 2009 order. In the original order, the chancellor found a material change in circumstances and decreased Robert's monthly child-support payments from $2,000 to $1,000 for a six-month period. Robert was also required to maintain a life-insurance policy for the benefit of his son and provide his son's health and automobile insurance. Robert was ordered to pay $1,000 for Beverly's attorney's fees. In the July 28, 2009 order, the chancellor found Robert in contempt for defaulting on $14,750 in child-support payments; required Robert to pay two installments of $100 each month until this arrearage was fully paid; and awarded Beverly an additional $1,300 in attorney's fees.
¶2. Robert appealed in Evans v. Evans, 75 So.3d 1083 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). This Court remanded the issue of attorney's fees, and instructed the chancellor that " any award of attorney's fees must be supported with findings concerning Beverly's inability to pay and the reasonableness of the award under the McKee  factors." Id. at 1090 (¶ 26). We also reversed the chancellor's reduction of Robert's child-support obligation and remanded " for the chancellor to make findings regarding the child-support guidelines and deviation criteria." Id. at 1085 (¶ 2). We reversed and
rendered on the issue of contempt and affirmed " the chancellor's refusal to relate the modification order back to an earlier date." Id.
¶3. On October 23, 2012, Beverly filed a suggestion for a writ of garnishment in the Washington County Circuit Court. Beverly based the garnishment request on the July 28, 2009 order issued by the chancellor, and sought the $14,750 arrearage of child support, as well as an additional $2,000 in attorney's fees. Three writs of garnishment were issued. Robert then sought to have those garnishments quashed. After a hearing on the matter, the circuit court set aside the writs of garnishment. Beverly moved for reconsideration. The circuit court denied Beverly's motion for reconsideration and found that " a final judgment ha[d] not been rendered in this matter. Therefore, the garnishment was improper."
¶4. Beverly now appeals, arguing: (1) the July 28, 2009 order was a final judgment; and (2) she is entitled to writs of garnishment regardless of ...