Burcham v. Burcham
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01868-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-23-2004 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Child support - Periodic alimony - Attorney's fees Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, 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: 10-03-2002 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Chancery Court Judge: Sarah P. Springer Disposition: GRANT OF DIVORCE ON THE GROUND OF IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES Case Number: 00-583-S |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William David Burcham |
EARL P. JORDAN
JAMES A. WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | Lisa Johnson Burcham | LAWRENCE PRIMEAUX |
|
|
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 - Child support - Periodic alimony - Attorney's fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lisa Burcham and David Burcham consented to a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The chancello established child support at the rate of $650 per month, determined that all funds in David's various retirement funds accumulated during the marriage should be divided equally, and ordered David to assume sole responsibility for all indebtedness listed in his statement of economic interest except the home mortgage. David appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Child support David argues that the chancellor erred in setting child support at the figure of $650 per month, because the proof showed that his income exceeded the $50,000 annual sum mentioned in section 43-19-101(4) and the chancellor did not make specific findings of fact as to the needs of the child. David is barred from raising this issue on appeal. During the course of his testimony, both on direct and on cross-examination, he agreed that the proposed figure of $650 per month was a fair and reasonable sum. Issue 2: Periodic alimony In addition to the equitable distribution, the chancellor found that David should be required to pay the sum of $400 per month in periodic alimony. David argues that, when the two awards are considered together, the financial benefit to Lisa is so overly generous as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Even taking into account the property received in the equitable division, Lisa was faced with substantially less available sums to meet her anticipated living expenses than was David. Lisa quit her regular employment to have a child and provide care for that child and to keep a home for the family. This interruption in her working career for seven years could reasonably be seen as permanently diminishing her potential for more lucrative forms of employment. Therefore, the chancellor did not abuse her discretion. Issue 3: Attorney's fees David argues that the court erred in awarding Lisa attorney’s fees of $3,500. To require Lisa to expend a substantial portion of the funds received in the equitable division of assets in order to pay her attorney’s fees would defeat the purpose of the award. In addition, there is no evidence that Lisa possessed other separately-held assets or untapped earning capacity that would be available to meet her attorney’s fees. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
