Wilson v. Wilson
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02096-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-02096-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-09-2007 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Equitable distribution of marital property - Alimony Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2005 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE ENTERED Case Number: 2004-05-0741-(PL) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ANGELA RUTH (HANCOCK) WILSON |
MARY LYNN WILLIAMS DAMARE’ |
|
|
| Appellee: | WILLIAM FRANKLIN WILSON | JOHN STANNARD FARESE | ||
| Appellee #2: | ||||
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 - Equitable distribution of marital property - Alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Angela Wilson was granted a divorce from Frank Wilson based on adultery. Prior to the trial, Angela sought to join Tri-State, Inc. as a party to the suit so that the court could potentially divide its assets. The chancellor denied this motion as well as Angela’s motion for a continuance and for an independent accounting of Tri-State. At trial, Angela presented evidence as to the value of Tri-State. The chancellor made the following property division: the ownership of Tri-State Underground, Inc. to Frank, the leasehold in Hernando County and all its furnishings to Angela, the 2004 Yukon, or like vehicle, to Angela free and clear, and the marital home to be sold and its proceeds and debts divided evenly. Angela also received an alimony award of $4,000 per month to continue until the court ordered otherwise and attorney’s fees in the amount of $19,813.72. Angela appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable distribution of marital property Angela argues that the chancellor erred in the divorce decree by finding Tri-State to be the separate property of Frank and that the valuation of the corporation was improper. Contrary to Angela’s assertions, the chancellor did not find that the corporation was separate property. The chancellor properly found that the ownership interest in Tri-State was an asset to be equitably divided. He then refused to divide the ownership of Tri-State and ordered Frank to be its sole owner. His reasoning was that Angela’s contributions to the corporation were minimal. Considering the value of the corporation, this award is essentially an award of $10,000 of the marital property, the ownership interest in Tri-State, to Frank. As far as the valuation of Tri-State, the $10,000 taken from the balance sheet was the only value of the corporation offered by either party. Furthermore, the chancellor found that the financial status of Frank’s companies had been precarious. The record supports this conclusion as the first company went bankrupt and resulted in a lien on the marital home. Angela received the 2004 Yukon, free and clear, the leasehold interest to the Hernando residence, one-half of the value of the marital home, and personal property in her possession, which she valued at $50,000 in her financial statement. Frank received sole ownership of Tri-State, two encumbered vehicles, one-half of the value of the marital home, and any personal property in his possession. Based on these facts, the assets of the marriage were equitably divided, and proper application of the Ferguson factors supports this result. Issue 2: Alimony Angela argues that the award of alimony was inadequate. The chancellor considered and made findings on each of the factors enumerated in Armstrong. Based upon these findings, he awarded Angela alimony payments of $4,000 per month. While this may have been below the standard of living to which she was accustomed, it was an award of approximately fifty percent of Frank’s reported income. Angela had been receiving temporary support of $10,000 per month until approximately February 2005. After reviewing her expense estimates, the chancellor found them to be greatly exaggerated. Angela argues that Frank’s temporary payments of $10,000 indicate his ability to pay that much. She neglects, however, to reconcile the fact that, at the time of trial, Frank had failed to pay the full amount of temporary support for a number of months, he had outstanding loans from Tri-State, and she had testified about how Frank would establish credit in others’ names. Thus, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in his award of alimony to Angela. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
