George v. George
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01041-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-01-2009 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Periodic alimony - Lump sum alimony Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-21-2008 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED AND PERIODIC ALIMONY AND LUMP-SUM ALIMONY AWARDED Case Number: 07-09-1809(PL) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | TOMMY LEE GEORGE |
DAVID L. WALKER |
|
|
| Appellee: | DAPHNE DIANE GEORGE | KIMBERLY S. JONES, GEORGE S. LUTER | ||
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 - Periodic alimony - Lump sum alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tommy George and Diane George were granted a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. In the divorce decree, the chancellor awarded Diane a fifty percent interest in Tommy’s retirement account with Kroger and full interest in the couple’s 2005 Chrysler minivan, with Tommy to be responsible for any outstanding indebtedness on the van. In addition, Diane was awarded sole, exclusive possession of the marital home. Determining that there was $15,500 of equity in the marital home, the chancellor divided this amount equally between the parties, with each receiving $7,750. However, Tommy’s award of the marital-home equity was awarded to Diane as lump-sum alimony. Diane was also awarded $1,000 per month in periodic alimony. Tommy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | A chancellor’s award of alimony should be reasonable in amount, commensurate with the wife’s accustomed standard of living, minus her own resources, and considering the ability of the husband to pay. Periodic alimony should only be considered if the chancellor determines that a spouse has suffered a disparity of income and standard of living following the equitable division of the marital assets. An award of periodic alimony is based upon need. In support of the award of periodic alimony, the chancellor noted that Diane was in her fifties, that the couple had been married for thirty-three years, and the disparity in incomes between the parties. Another factor the chancellor considered was the health and earning capacity of the parties. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s award of periodic alimony to Diane. Tommy argues that the lump-sum alimony award of $7,750 was financially unnecessary as Diane had been awarded a fifty-percent interest in Tommy’s retirement account and exclusive use and possession of the marital home. The award of lump-sum alimony is a final settlement, not subject to modification. When cases involving the award of lump-sum alimony are analyzed, the single most important factor undoubtedly is the disparity of the separate estates. The chancellor considered the couple’s lengthy marriage, Diane’s limited employment skills, and her medical problems in his award of lump-sum alimony. The testimony also showed that Diane was a homemaker for most of her married life and had been the main caregiver for the couple’s children. It is evident that there was a significant disparity between the parties’ estates, and without the award of lump-sum alimony, Diane lacked financial security. Thus, there was no error in the award. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
