Dorsey v. Dorsey
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00328-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00328-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-08-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Habitual drunkenness - Division of marital assets - Alimony - Attorney’s fees Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, 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: 01-18-2006 Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Janace Harvey Goree Disposition: DENIAL OF KELLI DORSEY’S MOTION FOR ALIMONY AND ATTORNEY’S FEES. Case Number: 04-521G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | KELLI ANN DORSEY |
JOHN W. CHRISTOPHER |
||
| Appellee: | BILLY WAYNE DORSEY | JOHN ROBERT WHITE |
|
|
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: Habitual drunkenness - Division of marital assets - Alimony - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kelli Dorsey was granted a divorce from Billy Dorsey on the grounds of Billy’s habitual drunkenness. The chancellor determined that neither Billy’s company, ESI, nor the five-acre plot of land donated to him by his family transmuted into marital property. The chancellor further denied Kelli’s request for alimony and her request for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred during trial. Kelli appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Division of marital assets Kelli argues that the chancellor’s determination that both ESI and the five-acre parcel of land were Billy’s separate property was manifestly erroneous, because they were used in such a manner that caused them to lose their identity as separate property and instead became commingled, transforming into marital assets. The facts are undisputed that ESI was given solely to Billy by his father. Further, the five-acre parcel of land was given solely to Billy by Engineered Environmental Equipment, Inc., which was owned by his brothers. The chancellor did not err in finding that while some personal funds may have been used to pay business debts, those amounts are easily traceable and have not become so commingled as to have become unidentifiable and that the evidence presented by Kelli was insufficient to prove that personal and business expenses were so interwoven as to have caused the stock of ESI to have transmuted into marital property. With regard to the land, the contributions Kelli may have made by paying one year of property taxes are both minimal and easily traceable. As such, the chancellor did not err by determining that it was Billy’s separate property. Kelli also argues that the chancellor erred in her division of the marital assets. The chancellor did not err in determining that Billy’s expert had a more accurate and reliable approach for determining the value of ESI. The chancellor noted that the income/market approach used by Kelli’s expert had been criticized in several cases and that he improperly used goodwill in determining the valuation of ESI. Issue 2: Alimony Kelli argues that the chancellor committed manifest error in determining that she was not entitled to either lump sum or periodic alimony from Billy. If after the equitable distribution of the marital property, both parties have been adequately provided for, then an award of alimony is not appropriate. At trial, it was determined through testimony that both parties’ income and expenses were relatively equal. The chancellor determined that Kelli’s gross monthly salary was $3,813 and Billy’s was $4,576.83. Further, the testimony at trial revealed that Kelli could increase her earning potential to $4,730 per month if she were to work a forty hour work week. The chancellor also recognized that either party would suffer a financial deficit if ordered to pay support. The chancellor equally divided both the debts and marital assets and awarded Billy net assets of $63,838.62 and Kelli $65,095. Further, the chancellor gave the marital home and contents to Kelli and required Billy to pay his share of the line of credit on the marital residence. Given these facts, the chancellor did not commit manifest error in her determination denying alimony. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees Kelli argues that the chancellor committed manifest error in failing to award her attorney’s fees and costs. In order for a party to be awarded attorney’s fees, they must demonstrate an inability to pay. The record does not reflect a great disparity between the earning capacity of these parties nor does it demonstrate that Kelli is unable to pay her attorney’s fees. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
