Burge v. Burge
Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01641-COA Linked Case(s): 2001-CA-01641-COA |
|
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-08-2003 Opinion Author: Bridges, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Child support - Section 43-19-101 - Periodic alimony - Distribution of marital assets - Visitation Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King, P.J., Thomas, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Southwick, P.J. Votes: McMillin, C.J. and Griffis, J. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Dissenting Author : Lee and Irving, JJ., would grant. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Irving, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Lee, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-21-2001 Appealed from: Pearl River County Chancery Court Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr. Disposition: FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE AWARDING CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN, AWARDING VISITATION, ORDERING CHILD SUPPORT, ALIMONY AND DIVISION OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. Case Number: 00-0461GN-D |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Shelton Quent Burge |
ALBERT LIONEL NECAISE |
||
Appellee: | Lisa Marie Burge | SHIRLEE MARIE FAGER-BALDWIN |
|
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 - Section 43-19-101 - Periodic alimony - Distribution of marital assets - Visitation |
Summary of the Facts: | Shelton and Lisa Burge obtained a judgment of divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences. The court awarded custody of the couple’s two minor children to Lisa, established a visitation schedule for Shelton, and ordered Shelton to pay child support and alimony. Shelton appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Child support Shelton argues that the court erred when it departed from the guidelines on child support. Shelton's income has shown an undeniable tendency towards increase from fiscal year 1990 until June of fiscal year 2001. For fiscal year 2000, his adjusted gross income under section 43-19-101 was $64,322, significantly higher than the $54,000 that the chancellor fixed it at. The court did not err in fixing Shelton's adjusted gross income for purposes of determining child support at $54,000 per year. The court considered Shelton's income, and finding that the statutory guidelines would have produced a higher number than the court felt was appropriate, it lessened Shelton's gross adjusted income to produce a number that reflected the nature of Shelton's work. Issue 2: Periodic alimony Shelton argues that the court erred in awarding periodic alimony of $400 per month to Lisa, because the court should have considered the perfidious nature of Lisa's attitudes towards the sanctity of marriage in awarding alimony. Consent proceedings are by definition no-fault proceedings, and any evidence showing that the divorce was the fault of either party is to be eschewed. Therefore, Shelton's attempt to attack the chancellor's decision because the chancellor would not address inappropriate proof regarding fault at trial is unpersuasive. Issue 3: Distribution of marital assets Shelton argues that the chancellor erred in levying him with all of the marital debt and in bestowing the entire homestead upon Lisa. The court found that Shelton knew of the debts Lisa incurred, that marital funds were used to pay them, and that Shelton did nothing to stop Lisa from amassing further debt. Because there is no proof to the contrary, the court did not abuse its discretion. Issue 4: Visitation Shelton argues that because his work takes him out to sea for long periods of time, the court’s visitation schedule unfairly discriminated against his seeing his children. Because Shelton offers no alternative to the court's schedule, which was designed largely with Shelton's unpredictable absences in mind, the court did not abuse its discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court