Pearson v. Pearson
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00885-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-10-2013 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Value of pension Judge(s) Concurring: Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Fair and James, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Griffis, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-26-2007 Appealed from: Pearl River County Chancery Court Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr. Disposition: WIFE AWARDED 33% OF HUSBAND’S PENSION WITH $85,296.82 GUARANTEED Case Number: 03-0041-GN-D; |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Brian Layne Pearson |
GERALD C. PATCH
TARA LOLA KELLAR |
|
|
| Appellee: | Tammy Elizabeth Pearson | NANCY E. STEEN JOSEPH CONNLEY STEWART |
|
|
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 - Value of pension |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tammy Pearson filed for divorce from Brian Pearson, alleging habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Brian filed his answer/counter-complaint on the ground of adultery or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Tammy and Brian signed a consent to divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The chancellor awarded Tammy rehabilitative alimony of $800 for thirty months, along with “33% of [Brian’s] pension for the years of [Brian’s] employment with Lockheed Martin up to March 8, 2003.” In the qualified domestic relations order, the chancellor stated that Tammy’s interest should be valued as of March 8, 2003, to be paid to her on a ten-year “guaranteed payout.” Additionally, the chancellor stated, “[Brian] shall not be entitled to select a payment option in which [Tammy] will net less than $85,296.82 in total payable to [her] . . . .” Brian moved for reconsideration of the QDRO, because the $85,296.82 award was “significantly more” than 33% of the March 8, 2003 value of Brian’s pension. The chancellor denied the motion. Brian appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The only issue on appeal is the value the chancellor used to determine Tammy’s 33% of Brian’s pension. Tammy did not file an appellate brief. While automatic reversal is not required in cases where the appellee does not file a brief, the appellant’s argument should at least create enough doubt in the judiciousness of the trial court’s judgment that the appellate court cannot say with confidence that the case should be affirmed. Here, Brian’s argument creates enough doubt in the judiciousness of the chancellor’s judgment. The valuation the chancellor used was the January 31, 2012 value and not the March 8, 2003 value, which would have been consistent with the chancellor’s ruling in the final decree of divorce. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
