Ghoston v. Ghoston
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01848-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01848-SCT ; 2006-CA-01848-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-20-2007 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Alimony - Financial disclosure statement - Unclean hands Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): IRVING, J. Dissenting Author : ROBERTS, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-02-2006 Appealed from: MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: WIFE AWARDED DIVORCE AND ALIMONY. Case Number: 05-7-0127PL |
|
| Note: | ROBERTS, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RILEY GHOSTON |
ALIX H. SANDERS |
||
| Appellee: | DEBBIE A. JONES GHOSTON | A. E. (RUSTY) HARLOW, JR. SABRINA A. DAVIDSON |
|
|
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 - Alimony - Financial disclosure statement - Unclean hands |
| Summary of the Facts: | Riley Ghoston and Debbie Jones Ghoston divorced due to irreconcilable differences. The court awarded alimony and custody of the couple’s child to Debbie. Riley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Alimony Riley argues that the chancellor did not consider all of the Armstrong factors in his ruling and, as such, failed to adequately weigh each factor. When a chancellor grants alimony, he is not required to specifically enumerate each Armstrong factor. Within the court’s divorce decree, which also adjudicated the issue of alimony, the chancellor specifically addressed the expenses of the parties, the length of the marriage, the debts of the parties, as well as the differences in incomes. Additionally, the decree incorporated the chancellor’s bench opinion, which discussed in detail the parties’ earning capacities, their standards of living, and their respective tax obligations. Thus, there is no merit to the claim that the chancellor failed to adequately weigh each Armstrong factor. Issue 2: Financial disclosure statement Riley argues that the chancellor erred in failing to require Debbie to provide a financial disclosure statement in compliance with UCCR 8.05 prior to trial. However,Riley enters the court with unclean hands due to his own failure to provide a financial disclosure until the day of trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
