Lazarus v. Lazarus
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-00904-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-01-2003 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Division of marital property - Alimony - Child support Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-08-2001 Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED, PROPERTY DISTRIBUTED Case Number: 96-0745 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Evelyn Ann Lazarus |
ED PITTMAN, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Thomas Sutton Lazarus | DAVID M. RATCLIFF |
|
|
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 - Division of marital property - Alimony - Child support |
| Summary of the Facts: | Evelyn Lazarus and Thomas Lazarus were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. The court found that the Lazaruses should share legal and physical custody of their college-age daughter and ordered Thomas to pay all of the child’s college expenses. The chancellor awarded each spouse one-half of the other spouse’s retirement account and vested title in the marital home to Evelyn, who would also be responsible for the house payments. Evelyn appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Division of marital property Evelyn argues that the court used an incorrect amount for the value of Thomas’s retirement, thereby reducing her just share in the property division. Factors a chancellor should consider when equitably dividing marital property include substantial contribution to the accumulation of the property; degree to which each spouse has expended, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of marital assets; market value and the emotional value of the assets subject to distribution; value of assets not ordinarily, absent equitable factors to the contrary, subject to such distribution; tax and other economic consequences; extent to which property division may, with equity to both parties, be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of future friction between the parties; needs of the parties for financial security; and any other equitable factors. The chancellor made detailed findings and found that these assets, given Evelyn’s lifestyle, her employment, and level of education, should provide her with a good standard of living. Therefore, there was no error. Issue 2: Alimony Evelyn argues that the court erred in failing to award her alimony. In determining if alimony is appropriate, the court should consider 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; and any other equitable factor. The chancellor considered these factors and concluded that Evelyn should be able to enjoy a comparable lifestyle on her income and share of the marital assets. Given these findings, the judgment concerning alimony is affirmed. Issue 3: Child support Evelyn argues that the court erred in failing to award child support. Where the adjusted gross income of the parent paying child support is over $50,000, the chancellor may make written findings that the statutory guidelines are not applicable. Thomas has an adjusted gross income that exceeds $50,000. The chancellor ordered Thomas to continue to provide for the daughter’s educational needs and stated he would revisit this issue if Thomas should fail to daughter. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
