COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: FORREST COUNTY CHANCERY COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/20/2013. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHNNY LEE WILLIAMS. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: GRANTED APPELLEE'S MOTION TO MODIFY VISITATION.
FOR APPELLANT: S. CHRISTOPHER FARRIS.
FOR APPELLEE: SHAWN M. LOWREY, ERIK M. LOWREY.
BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND MAXWELL, JJ. IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ., CONCUR. JAMES, J., CONCURS IN PART.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[¶1] Bradley Kabat Nurkin (Brad) and Eva Caroline Nurkin (Caroline) were divorced in Tennessee in 2011. Caroline was granted custody of the couple's minor son, Jake, who was born in 2003. Eventually both parties relocated. Caroline and Jake moved to Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Brad moved to Gainesville, Georgia.
[¶2] On November 14, 2012, Caroline filed a petition in the Forrest County Chancery Court seeking a modification of Jake's visitation schedule. Caroline then filed an amended petition, asking for Brad
to be held in contempt for his failure to reimburse her for Jake's medical expenses and for a reconsideration of child support. Brad filed a motion to dismiss Caroline's petitions, arguing lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. The chancellor issued an order retaining jurisdiction over the modification issue, but dismissing Caroline's contempt and child-support claims.
[¶3] After a hearing, the chancellor issued a judgment on September 20, 2013, modifying Jake's visitation schedule. Both parties filed post-trial motions, which the chancellor dismissed. Brad filed his notice of appeal on October 21, 2013. On November 22, 2013, Brad filed a motion for contempt and asked the chancellor to clarify his judgment. On December 16, 2013, the chancellor issued an opinion that clarified his previous judgment. Brad then filed an amended notice of appeal.
[¶4] In his appeal, Brad argues that the chancellor: (1) did not have jurisdiction to modify the Tennessee judgment; (2) erred bye modifying visitation; (3) erred by restricting him from flying Jake in a private plane; (4) erred by denying his motion for clarification; and (5) erred by modifying the first judgment after a notice of appeal had been filed.
[¶5] Caroline filed a cross-appeal, arguing the chancellor should not have dismissed her request to ...