Barker v. Barker
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01147-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-01147-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-18-2008 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Permanent alimony - Lump sum alimony - Rehabilitative alimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-13-2007 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr. Disposition: JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED Case Number: 05-04-0669ML |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | LAVERA NELSON BARKER |
DAVID L. WALKER |
|
|
| Appellee: | RAYMOND BARKER | H.R. GARNER | ||
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 - Permanent alimony - Lump sum alimony - Rehabilitative alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lavera Barker filed a complaint for divorce against her husband, Raymond Barker, alleging several fault-based grounds and irreconcilable differences. Both parties agreed to a voluntary divorce based on irreconcilable differences and signed a property settlement agreement to control the division of their assets. Those assets primarily consisted of the equity in the marital home, with an agreed value of $82,616.60, and the equity in three rental homes owned by the couple, with an agreed total value of $87,533.56. In the final property settlement, Lavera chose to retain the marital home and to assume responsibility for its mortgage, while Raymond received the rental homes and assumed responsibility for the mortgages on those properties. Each of the parties received an unencumbered vehicle, and they tried to divide the remaining marital property evenly. The parties submitted to the chancery court the only remaining issues of whether Lavera was entitled to an award of any alimony from Raymond and whether Lavera was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. The chancellor found that Lavera was entitled to rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $200 per month for two years, but she was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. Lavera appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Lavera argues that the court erred in failing to award her permanent alimony. Factors the court considers in determining whether to award permanent alimony include the parties’ income and expenses; the parties’ health and earning capacities; needs of each party; obligations and assets of each party; length of the marriage; presence or absence of minor children in the home, which may require one or both of the parties to provide childcare; the parties’ ages; the parties’ standard of living both during the marriage and at the time support is determined; tax consequences of the spousal support order; fault or misconduct; wasteful dissipation of assets by either party; and any other equitable factor. Although the chancellor did not make specific findings of fact with respect to each of these factors, it is clear from his opinion that he did evaluate the overall need for alimony, and he did make specific findings based on the factors regarding the parties’ income and expenses, the parties’ health and earning capacities, the obligations and assets of each party, and the length of the marriage. The only issues about which the witnesses testified concerned the alimony factors. Ultimately, both parties were disabled and were receiving or waiting to receive social security disability benefits. Aside from Raymond’s disability income, he received some additional income from two rental homes. Based upon those facts, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in awarding Lavera rehabilitative alimony, but refusing to award permanent alimony. For the same reasons, the chancellor did not err in refusing to award lump sum alimony or in awarding rehabilitative alimony in the sum of $200 per month for two years to Lavera. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
