Diehl v. Diehl
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00006-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-09-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Separate maintenance - Inherited assets Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-01-2008 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Dorothy W. Colom Disposition: SEPARATE MAINTENANCE AWARDED AND HUSBAND ORDERED TO PAY $1,800 PER MONTH Case Number: 06-0644-C |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JERE LEE DIEHL |
CURTIS H. AUSTIN |
|
|
| Appellee: | CAROLYN LEE DIEHL | CARRIE A. JOURDAN, HAL H.H. MCCLANAHAN | ||
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: | Separate maintenance - Inherited assets |
| Summary of the Facts: | Carolyn Diehl filed a claim for separate maintenance from her husband, Jere Diehl. The chancellor held that Carolyn was without fault in Jere’s willful abandonment; as such, she was entitled to separate maintenance in the amount of $1,800, to be paid monthly. Jere appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jere argues that the chancery court did not fully consider Carolyn’s inherited assets in determining her need for separate maintenance, thereby allowing Carolyn to reap a windfall. He argues that even assuming that Carolyn requires separate maintenance, the chancery court completely ignored that Carolyn has inherited assets totaling approximately $360,000. The amount of the award should not be so great as to unduly deplete the husband’s estate or earning capacity. Because a decree for separate maintenance is merely an enforcement of the same rights which the wife had before the separation, the award should not confer on the wife any greater rights than she would have had if the cohabitation had continued. Based on the chancellor’s findings, which the record fully supports, at the time of trial, Carolyn’s inherited assets consisted of a condominium, valued at $169,000, and money contained in a savings account in the amount of $67,000, which came from liquidated securities. The courts have no authority to divest title to property from either spouse in a separate maintenance action, whether it be marital or nonmarital property. Because the chancellor is without authority to order Carolyn to sell the condominium she inherited and in which her daughter now lives, the value of the condominium, rightly, was a non-factor in the chancellor’s decision with regard to the amount of Carolyn’s award of separate maintenance. Likewise, there is no error in the chancellor’s decision not to take the money Carolyn had in savings into consideration in determining the amount of the award. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
