Seale v. Seale
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01161-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-06-2004 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of alimony - Derivative social security payments 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: 04-30-2002 Appealed from: Marshall County Chancery Court Judge: Norman L. Gillespie Disposition: WIFE GRANTED DIVORCE ON GROUND OF ADULTERY, ALIMONY GRANTED, ASSETS AND LIABILITIES DIVIDED. Case Number: 89-486 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Robert A. Seale, III |
SARAH JEAN LIDDY |
||
| Appellee: | Dorothy W. Seale | CLIFF R. EASLEY |
|
|
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: | Modification of alimony - Derivative social security payments |
| Summary of the Facts: | When Robert Seale and Dorothy Seale were divorced, they agreed that Robert would pay periodic alimony to Dorothy in the amount of $1,250 per month. After Robert sold his pharmacy business, he filed a motion to modify his monthly alimony obligation. The chancellor reduced his monthly obligation from $1,250 to $850 per month. Robert appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Robert argues that the chancellor erred in failing to credit Dorothy’s monthly Social Security benefit check against his recurring alimony obligation. The issue of whether a credit is due for derivative Social Security payments depends on findings of fact beyond proof that benefits in a certain amount are being received by the obligee. Here, there was no contention at the trial level that the benefits being received by Dorothy were attributable to her former husband’s earning history such that they could properly be classed as derivative Social Security payments. Therefore, this issue cannot be considered on appeal. Robert also argues that the proof plainly showed that he was entitled to a more substantial reduction in alimony than the $400 allowed by the chancellor. The record shows that Dorothy’s assets are incapable of producing any amount of income to meet her recurring monthly living expenses. Therefore, she remains in the situation where she needs additional monthly income from some source to meet her basic living needs, and the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in reducing the alimony by only $400. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
