Gable v. Gable
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01918-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2003 Opinion Author: McMillin, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Child custody - Child support - Alimony Judge(s) Concurring: King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-11-2001 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: William Griffin, Jr. Disposition: CUSTODY OF BOTH CHILDREN, CHILD SUPPORT AND ALIMONY TO APPELLEE. Case Number: 2000-0664 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Keith Noel Gable |
HENRY BERNARD ZUBER |
||
| Appellee: | Joy Lynn Gable | DAVID A. ROBERTS |
|
|
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 custody - Child support - Alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Keith Gable and Joy Gable were granted a divorce for irreconcilable differences. The chancellor awarded Joy custody of the couple's two children, child support of $824 per month and periodic alimony of $500 per month. Keith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Custody Keith argues that the chancellor’s findings of fact regarding the award of child custody were inadequate to support the decision. In determining custody, the court should consider the age, health and sex of the child; continuity of care prior to separation; parenting skills of each parent; employment of each parent; physical and mental health of the parents; emotional ties between parent and child; moral fitness of the parents; home, school, and community record of the child; preference of the child; stability of home environment; and any other relevant factors. In this case, the chancellor undertook to make a rather lengthy analysis of the various factors and how he felt the evidence pertaining to that factor influenced his decision on custody. The chancellor noted that the younger son had been in the continuous care of his mother and, due to his age, would be better off continuing in that situation and that the two boys enjoyed a close bond to each other that would be better served by keeping them together instead of apart. The court found that Joy had been the primary caregiver and that she proved to have the better parenting skills. For the employment factor, the court felt that both parents had jobs which were equally suitable for raising two children. The chancellor also found that Joy offered a more stable home environment. There is no evidence that the chancellor abused his discretion in making these findings. Issue 2: Child support Keith argues that the court deviated from the statutory guidelines and should therefore be required to make specific findings of fact to justify the award. Pursuant to section 49-19-101, child support for two children should be twenty percent of the obligor's adjusted gross income. Twenty percent of Keith’s reported net monthly income of $4,124.27 is $824, which is the amount that the chancellor awarded. Issue 3: Alimony Keith argues that the chancellor's decision to award Joy proceeds of $14,641.05 from the sale of the marital home, title to the couple's fifty-nine acres of land and $500 a month in permanent periodic alimony was error. Factors to be considered when determining an award for alimony include the 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 other equitable factor. While Joy was awarded the proceeds from the sale of the marital home and title to the couple's fifty-nine acres of land, Keith was awarded his business which was estimated to amount to $58,000. This division ended up being close to an even split of the couple's property. The chancellor's main reason for granting the alimony award was because Joy, who would be caring for herself and her two children, brought in a monthly income of only $1,004 a month whereas Keith enjoyed a monthly income of $4,124. In addition, the record indicates that the chancellor thoroughly considered all factors. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
