Holdeman v. Holdeman
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01574-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-04-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Health insurance - Section 43-19-101 - Child support - Value of marital assets Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Concurs in Result Only: Griffis, J., without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2008 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Jane R. Weathersby Disposition: ENTERED ORDER GRANTING DIVORCE Case Number: 2007-0207 |
|
| Note: | Due to a military leave of absence, Hon. Virginia C. Carlton did not participate in this hand down. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jennifer Holdeman |
W. DEAN BELK JR., IVA KUYKENDALL HORNE-MURRY |
||
| Appellee: | Phillip Holdeman | JOHN H. DANIELS III |
|
|
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 - Health insurance - Section 43-19-101 - Child support - Value of marital assets |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jennifer and Phillip Holdeman were granted a divorce on the ground of adultery. Pursuant to an agreement reached by the parties, the chancellor awarded Jennifer primary physical custody of their minor child and ordered Phillip to pay child support. Jennifer appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jennifer argues that the chancellor erred in failing to address the issue of the couple’s daughter’s health insurance in the final order. The chancellor did not address the issue of health insurance for the daughter in the order, even though she was required to do so by section 43-19-101(6). Phillip testified that he had always paid the health insurance premium to cover both his daughter and Jennifer. However, Jennifer testified that she was carrying health insurance on herself and that she also had her daughter on a dental-insurance policy. There is nothing in the chancellor’s order that requires this arrangement to continue. Therefore, this issue is remanded to the chancery court for further consideration. Jennifer also argues that the chancellor erred in ordering Phillip to pay only $400 per month in child support, because the chancellor did not comply with section 43-19-101(1), which provides that it shall be a rebuttable presumption that fourteen percent of the adjusted gross income of a non-custodial parent shall be awarded as child support for one child. Phillip’s income is significantly higher than the $54,174 that is reflected on his 8.05 statement. Phillip’s personal 2007 Federal Income Tax Return reflects that he did not have any taxable income; however, it is clear that he still earned money. What is unclear is exactly how much he earned. On remand, the chancellor should carefully scrutinize Phillip’s tax returns to determine if there is any income that should be considered in arriving at Phillip’s adjusted gross income, as specified in section 43-19-101(3)(a). Jennifer argues that there was a substantial decrease in the value of the marital assets that were under Phillip’s sole control between the time that he left the marital home on February 14, 2005, and the time that the matter was heard by the chancellor in June 2008, and the chancellor should have either valued the marital estate as of May 25, 2007 (the date that Phillip filed for divorce), or the chancellor should have taken an average of the value of the marital estate for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. When equitably dividing marital property upon divorce, the date of valuation is necessarily within the discretion of the chancellor. The chancellor did not abuse her discretion in valuing the marital estate as of the date of the trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
