Avery v. Avery
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01841-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-03-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Sentenced to penitentiary - Lump sum alimony - Child support - Reimbursement of fees Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-04-2002 Appealed from: Panola County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: ANNE AVERY'S COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE GRANTED, PROPERTY DIVIDED, CUSTODY AWARDED. Case Number: B-01-11-396(L) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ronald Avery |
TOMMY WAYNE DEFER
DAVID L. WALKER |
||
| Appellee: | Anne Avery | ADAM A. PITTMAN |
|
|
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: Sentenced to penitentiary - Lump sum alimony - Child support - Reimbursement of fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anne Avery was granted a divorce from Ronald Avery, on the ground that he was sentenced to a penitentiary and not pardoned before incarceration. Anne was awarded lump sum alimony of $12,600, child support of $225 per month, past due child support of $4,050, and reimbursement of attorney fees and counseling fees expended during the defense of his felony charges in the amount of $6,000. Ronald appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Lump sum alimony Ronald argues that the chancellor erred in the award of lump sum alimony. Ronald's room, board and health care were provided by the State while Anne had everyday living expenses and liabilities. Ronald’s period of incarceration was for a short period. Anne has one income with the same needs, particularly with respect to the minor child, whereas Ronald has none. Anne has an obligation to maintain the household, whereas Ronald does not. The fault of the divorce was clearly due to the fault and misconduct of Ronald. Given these circumstances, a lump sum award of $12,600 was not so exorbitant as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Issue 2: Child support Ronald argues that the chancellor erred in awarding child support. The chancellor found that Ronald had sufficient assets which could support the child. These findings were supported by substantial, credible evidence. Issue 3: Reimbursement of fees Ronald argues that the chancellor erred in awarding a $6,000 judgment to Anne for reimbursement of his criminal defense fees and counseling fees paid during the marriage. Chancellors have authority to order an equitable division of marital property accumulated through the joint efforts of the parties and the individual contributions of the parties to the marriage. Therefore, it was within the chancellor’s discretion to award reimbursement for these fees as part of the equitable distribution of assets since the fees for Ronald's misconduct were paid from marital funds. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
