Brabham v. Brabham


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-01437-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-06-2007
Opinion Author: LEE, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Division of marital estate - Exclusion of evidence - M.R.E. 503(b) & (f) - Alimony - Past due support
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-28-2005
Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court
Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr.
Disposition: PURSUANT TO CONSENT TO DIVORCE DECREE, THE CHANCELLOR ENTERED AN ORDER GRANTING WIFE 10% OF THE VALUE OF HUSBAND’S RETIREMENT ACCOUNT.
Case Number: 2003-0586
  Consolidated: Consolidated with 2005-CA-02335-COA Mary Anne Brabham v. Charles Robert Brabham; Jones Chancery Court 2nd District; LC Case #: 2003-0586; Ruling Date: 10/31/2005; Ruling Judge: Franklin McKenzie, Jr.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MARY ANNE BRABHAM




ERIK M. LOWREY, ROBERT R. MARSHALL



 

Appellee: CHARLES ROBERT BRABHAM TERRY L. CAVES, JERRY DEAN SHARP  

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 estate - Exclusion of evidence - M.R.E. 503(b) & (f) - Alimony - Past due support

Summary of the Facts: Mary Brabham filed for divorce from Charles Brabham on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, habitual use of alcohol, and, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Both parties ultimately consented to an irreconcilable differences divorce. The chancellor denied Mary alimony, awarded Mary fifty percent of the equity in the marital home ($2,274.16), awarded Mary ten percent of the value of Bob’s retirement account as of October 28, 2003, awarded Mary ownership of the Miata, awarded Bob the Yukon and the all-terrain vehicle, and ordered Bob to pay $3,500 towards Mary’s attorney’s fees. Prior to the chancellor’s final judgment, Mary filed a complaint alleging that Bob was in contempt for failing to pay temporary support. The chancellor found that Bob was not in contempt and also found Mary to be in contempt. Mary appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Division of marital estate Mary argues that the chancellor erred in determining and dividing the marital estate, because she should have received a greater portion of Bob’s retirement account and the chancellor should have divided the marital estate equally. Equitable distribution does not mean equal distribution. The chancellor found that Bob made almost all of the financial contributions to the parties’ marriage and that Mary made little or no financial contribution. Bob also handled the majority of the household duties. The marital home was valued at $77,000, and Bob had been paying the note on the house every month. The chancellor also found that, although Mary was less financially secure than Bob, she was capable of engaging in full-time employment. The chancellor noted that Mary was not employed because she was receiving temporary support from Bob as well as additional financial support from her boyfriend. The chancellor noted that Mary’s behavior caused the termination of the marriage. The chancellor, although awarding Mary fewer of the marital assets, did not assess any of the marital debts to Mary. Bob was also ordered to contribute $3,500 towards Mary’s attorney’s fees. Thus, substantial evidence exists to support the chancellor’s determination. Issue 2: Exclusion of evidence Mary argues that the chancellor erred in excluding evidence of certain documents from the parties’ joint counseling sessions. The chancellor did not err in excluding the documents under M.R.E. 503(b) since Bob objected and M.R.E. 503(f) since Bob did not assert that his physical, mental or emotional condition was an issue. Issue 3: Alimony Mary argues that the chancellor erred in failing to award her alimony. Mary is under the impression that the sole reason the chancellor denied her alimony was her adulterous behavior. The chancellor did state her adulterous behavior as one reason for denying alimony, but it is also clear from the record that the chancellor was unimpressed with Mary’s work history, her extreme behavior, and her unwillingness to contribute either directly or indirectly to the marriage. Issue 4: Past due support Mary argues that the chancellor erred in denying her past due support as required under the temporary order. The chancellor denied Mary relief, finding that it was acceptable for Bob to take credit for payments not listed in the temporary order, namely the car insurance and the drug bills. There was no error in the chancellor’s decision.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court