Tritle v. Tritle
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01768-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2007 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Custody - Periodic alimony Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): IRVING, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-16-2005 Appealed from: George County Chancery Court Judge: Jaye A. Bradley, Sr. Disposition: THE CHANCELLOR AWARDED CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN TO THE APPELLEE AND ORDERED THE APPELLANT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND ALIMONY. Case Number: 2004-0108 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PARK ALLEN TRITLE |
DIXIE LYNN VAUGHN |
||
| Appellee: | CASI ALICIA TRITLE | DARRYL A. HURT |
|
|
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 - Custody - Periodic alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Park and Casi Tritle agreed to a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. The chancellor awarded Casi custody of the couple’s two children and ordered Park to pay Casi periodic alimony. Park appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Custody Park argues that the chancellor should not have found that any of the Albright factors favored placing custody with Casi and that, although the chancellor found that physical and mental health of the parents and stability of the home environment favored neither him nor Casi, the chancellor should have found that those two factors favored him. The chancellor heard conflicting testimony. Casi testified that she provided primary care for the children prior to the separation. However, Park testified that he provided primary care for the children prior to the separation. Facing contradicting testimony, it fell to the chancellor to resolve the issue. True enough, Park testified that he and Casi each provided care, but certain evidence corroborated the chancellor’s finding. Park testified that, prior to the separation, he often worked between fifty and eighty hour work weeks. Casi’s workday ended shortly after the children’s school day ended. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that Casi would provide the bulk of primary care where Park had such demanding employment duties. As for parenting skills, Park claims that he possesses better parenting skills because Casi sleeps excessively when she has the children. However, there was no evidence that, when Casi had the children in the home, Casi slept to the degree that it negatively effected her capacity to provide child care. Park also claimed that Casi lacked parenting skills because she had an uncontrollable anger problem. However, Casi vehemently denied that. The chancellor found Casi more credible. Park’s allegations notwithstanding, there was no evidence that Casi physically abused the children or that the children were afraid of Casi. Park submits that Casi lacks proper judgment because she smokes around the children. However, Casi testified that she did not smoke in the house. There was no evidence that Casi’s smoking had adversely affected the children’s health. Park submits that he possesses better parenting skills due to his involvement in the children’s extracurricular activities. However, there was ample testimony that Casi took the children to various school sporting events and that the children enjoyed going to those games with Casi. There was ample testimony that Park relied on his parents to assist with caring for the children due to the demands of his job. Casi did not need any assistance in caring for the children. With regard to employment, it was not unreasonable for the chancellor to conclude that Park’s employment would affect his capacity to provide child care. Park also argues that chancellor committed reversible error when she gave Casi paramount care, custody and control of the children. It is clear from the context of the chancellor’s findings of fact, including the chancellor’s provisions regarding Park’s visitation, that the chancellor awarded sole physical custody to Casi. It is likewise clear from the chancellor’s judgment that the chancellor awarded sole legal custody of the children to Casi. Issue 2: Periodic alimony Park argues that the chancellor failed to properly consider equitable distribution before she considered whether alimony was necessary, failed to properly consider his and Casi’s wage earning capacities, and over-emphasized his marital misconduct and underemphasized Casi’s marital misconduct. It is clear that the chancellor considered equitable distribution prior to considering alimony. That is, the chancellor noted that the parties stipulated to the distribution of their marital property and the chancellor divided the marital debt. There is no evidence that the chancellor failed to consider Casi’s additional income. The chancellor did not specifically refer to Casi’s monthly income. Likewise, the chancellor did not specifically refer to Park’s income. In considering whether one party should receive alimony, it is within the chancellor’s discretion to weigh each party’s marital fault. There was substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s decision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
