Coggin v. Coggin
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-00133-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-11-2003 Opinion Author: Myers, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Division of marital property - Alimony Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-12-2000 Appealed from: Lee County Chancery Court Judge: Charles D. Thomas Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED, PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION Case Number: 96-0895 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cathy Jean Stansfield Coggin |
BEN LOGAN |
||
| Appellee: | David Scott Coggin | JAK MCGEE SMITH |
|
|
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 - Division of marital property - Alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cathy Coggin was awarded a divorce based on the ground of adultery from David Coggin. The court awarded Cathy the marital home and one acre of land but no alimony. The court also ordered David to pay one-half of Cathy’s attorney’s fees. Cathy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Division of property Factors the court should consider in equitably dividing marital property include substantial contribution to the accumulation of the property, degree to which each spouse has expended, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of marital assets, market value and emotional value of the assets subject to distribution, value of assets not ordinarily subject to such distribution, tax and other economic consequences of the proposed distribution, extent to which property division may be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of future friction between the parties, needs of the parties for financial security, and any other equitable factor. Although it is not clear whether the chancellor considered the depletion of retirement and insurance assets in his original opinion, the chancellor indicated in his amended opinion that he did consider the pre-divorce distribution of these marital assets which is what led him to award Cathy eighty percent of the remaining marital estate and David twenty percent. Since the court considered the relevant factors, his judgment was not manifestly wrong. Issue 2: Alimony To determine if alimony is appropriate, the court should consider the income and expenses of the parties; health and earning capacities of the parties; needs of each party; obligations and assets of each party; length of the marriage; presence or absence of minor children in the home; age of the parties; standard of living of the parties; tax consequences of the spousal support order; fault or misconduct; wasteful dissipation of assets; and any other equitable factor. Although the chancellor did not consider all these factors, he found both parties to have similar earning capacity. In addition, there is no proof that David had any substantial income from which to pay alimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
