Ladner v. Ladner
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01155-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2003 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Division of marital property - Alimony - Attorney’s fees Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., 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: 06-18-2001 Appealed from: Pearl River County Chancery Court Judge: Johnny Lee Williams Disposition: GRANT OF DIVORCE ON GROUNDS OF UNCONDONED ADULTERY, DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY, AND DENIAL OF ALIMONY AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. Case Number: 99-0620-GN-W |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ruby Joyce Stines Ladner |
JOHN D. SMALLWOOD |
||
| Appellee: | Luther Ladner | DAVID ALAN PUMFORD |
|
|
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: Adultery - Division of marital property - Alimony - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ruby and Luther Ladner filed for divorce. The chancellor granted Luther's motion for a new trial after finding that Ruby and several of her witnesses had perjured themselves. Ruby appealed without supersedeas bond for an increase in her portion of the marital property. Luther filed a motion to consolidate Ruby’s appeal from the divorce judgment and his appeal from the order of divestiture, which the Supreme Court denied. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Division of marital property Ruby argues that the court erred in determining that the eighty acres of property that she had conveyed to the couple’s son constituted part of the marital property. However, Ruby fails to consider the court’s amended findings of fact, conclusions of law and final judgment entered by the court after Luther filed a motion for new trial, but instead relies on the original judgment. Therefore, her issues referring to that original judgment are considered moot. Issue 2: Alimony Ruby argues that Luther's fault in concealing a portion of the proceeds from the sale of farm assets was so great that she should be entitled to an award of those monies. Alimony is not to be awarded when the division of the marital assets provides adequately for the maintenance of both parties. One of the factors in determining an award of alimony is fault or misconduct. Ruby ignores the fact that the chancellor found that she had perjured herself, which resulted in the amended final judgment lessening her award. Despite her perjury, she received the contested eighty acres as a portion of the marital assets due her. Therefore, the court did not err in denying alimony. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees Ruby argues that the court erred in denying her an award of attorney's fees. The record contains no evidence of her inability to pay her attorney, the difficulty of the case, or the time and labor involved in providing her with adequate representation. Therefore, the court did not err in denying attorney’s fees. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
