Seymour v. Seymour
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00784-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-23-2004 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Clarification of decision - M.R.C.P. 60(a) Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Motion for Rehearing Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-18-2001 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: J. N. Randall, Jr. Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED ON GROUNDS OF IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES. $50,000 LUMP SUM ALIMONY AWARDED TO DEBORAH SEYMOUR Case Number: 00-02712 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Morris L. Seymour, III |
M. CHANNING POWELL |
||
| Appellee: | Deborah O. Seymour | PRO SE |
|
|
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 - Clarification of decision - M.R.C.P. 60(a) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Morris and Deborah Seymour were granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The judge ordered that the properties owned by the couple be sold, awarded the electrical business to Morris, and awarded Deborah $50,000 in lump sum alimony to be paid from Morris's share of the property sales. After Morris filed a motion to reconsider, the court found that the lump sum alimony was support rather than part of the property settlement. Morris appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Morris argues that it was beyond the discretion of the court to clarify that the lump sum alimony awarded to Deborah was for support and not part of the property settlement since under M.R.C.P. 59(d), more than ten days had passed between the entry of the judgment and the order on post trial motions, and under M.R.C.P. 60(a), the court could not on its own initiative make a new ruling. However, Rule 60(a) can be used to correct an order that failed accurately to reflect the judge's original decision. Therefore, it was within the scope of Rule 60(a) for the judge to clarify what his decision in the divorce decree in fact was. Morris also argues that it was incorrect for the judge to determine that alimony is a nondischargeable debt in bankruptcy in the post-trial hearing. Whether lump sum alimony is dischargeable is left to a United States Bankruptcy Court. There is no error in procedure or in substantive law in the chancellor's decision to identify this alimony as being for the purpose of support. What may ultimately occur in bankruptcy court as a result of that label is for the bankruptcy court to decide. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
