Ericson v. Tullos
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00200-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-22-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed on DA and CA |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Alimony - Division of marital assets Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-31-2001 Appealed from: Rankin County Chancery Court Judge: Thomas L. Zebert Disposition: CHANCELLOR DIVIDED MARITAL ASSETS AND DENIED ALIMONY TO HUSBAND. Case Number: 47,981 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Elizabeth Ericson, Executrix of the Estate of Richard Spang, Deceased |
DEBRA LYNN ALLEN |
||
| Appellee: | Debra Sue Tullos | B. RUTH JOHNSON |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Alimony - Division of marital assets |
| Summary of the Facts: | Richard Spang filed a complaint for divorce from Debra Tullos alleging habitual cruel and inhuman treatment as grounds for the divorce and, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. The parties agreed to execute a voluntary consent to divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Each party sought an equitable distribution of the assets, and Richard sought alimony. Richard appealed on the sole issue of alimony. He has since died and the executrix of his estate has been substituted as a party. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Alimony To determine if alimony is appropriate, the court should consider income and expenses of the parties; health and earning capacities of the parties; needs of each party; obligations and assets of each party; length of the marriage; presence or absence of minor children in the home; age of the parties; standard of living of the parties; tax consequences of the spousal support order; fault or misconduct; wasteful dissipation of assets by either party; and any other equitable factor. The evidence shows that Debra currently earns $87,084 gross income per year and she is in reasonably good health; Richard's current monthly income is derived solely from Social Security and consists of $1,190 and long term disability payments of $1,064.08 for a total of $2,254.08; Richard is disabled and limited in his earning capacity; the marriage is of moderate length; there are no minor children; Debra is forty-seven years of age and Richard is sixty-three years of age; the parties enjoyed a reasonably comfortable standard of living; neither party wasted or dissipated assets; and since Richard is disabled, he will need to pay personnel to help in his daily activities and will need to do so every day of his life. Given these facts, the chancellor in no way abused his discretion in finding that Richard was not entitled to an award of alimony. Issue 2: Marital assets Debra argues that the chancellor erred in his determination that the personal injury proceeds and other assets were non-marital property. In attempting to effect an equitable distribution of marital property, courts should consider substantial contribution to the accumulation of property, degree to which each spouse has disposed of marital assets, market value and emotional value of assets, value of assets not ordinarily subject to such distribution, tax and other economic consequences, extent to which property division may be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of friction, needs of the parties, and any other equitable factor. In his findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is clear that the chancellor equitably disposed of all of the property. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
