Walker v. Walker
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01074-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-08-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Division of marital assets - Periodic alimony Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-25-2007 Appealed from: Clay County Chancery Court Judge: Dorothy W. Colom Disposition: GRANTED IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES DIVORCE, DIVIDED MARITAL ASSETS, AND AWARDED ALIMONY TO APPELLEE Case Number: 2004-0330-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | R.L. Walker |
JOSEPH JOSHUA STEVENS, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Georgia M. Walker | CARRIE A. JOURDAN | ||
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 - Division of marital assets - Periodic alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Georgia Walker and R.L. Walker were granted a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The chancellor divided the marital assets and awarded alimony to Georgia. R.L. appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Division of marital assets R.L. argues that the division of the martial property was not equitable, and the marital debt was not fairly apportioned. He argues that when the chancellor divided the marital property, Georgia had a positive net worth of $115,899.29, and he was left with a negative net worth of -$80,931, with no debt apportioned to Georgia. Whether a debt is classified as marital or separate depends on who benefitted from the debt. An equitable distribution does not mean that the chancellor is required to divide the property equally. Fairness is the prevailing guideline in marital division. The chancellor found that although R.L. had been the primary breadwinner, Georgia had made significant contributions. The chancellor noted that there was in fact evidence to support the fact that R.L. had fathered several children by other women during the course of his marriage to Georgia and was in fact living with another woman at the time of the divorce proceeding. Georgia agreed to let R.L. have the items he had inherited from his mother, and there was no other evidence offered as to assets not ordinarily subject to such distribution. As to the real property, Georgia introduced into evidence real-property appraisals from the Clay County Tax Assessor’s Office. The chancellor accepted the values placed on the property from the tax assessor because there was no other credible evidence before the court. The marital home had a debt of $57,000, leaving equity of $4,881. The vacant lot was valued at $1,500. The rental house was valued at $34,210, and the balance of the mortgage on the rental house was $28,414, leaving equity of $5,796. The duplex was valued at $37,290, but it carried a mortgage of $50,000. The court ruled that all the monthly income produced from the rental properties serviced the associated debt. The chancellor found it difficult to accept that after thirty-five years of marriage, the parties’ household furnishings were valued at $15,000 per R.L.’s 8.05 financial statement, unless the parties had purchased antiques, and there was no testimony as to such purchases. The chancellor determined that there was animosity between the parties; however, it was not possible to provide for Georgia if periodic alimony was eliminated. Therefore, the chancellor sought to minimize payments and, thus, minimize future friction. The evidence indicated that both parties were employed. The chancellor found that the amendment to R.L.’s 8.05 financial statement regarding his gross monthly income (amended to $2,000 per month as opposed to $9,000 per month) was not credible, and that despite R.L.’s suffering from poor health, his business continued to gross $150,000 per year. The chancellor did not abuse her discretion. Issue 2: Periodic alimony R.L. argues that his income was not sufficient to justify periodic alimony. 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 marital assets. Georgia’s 8.05 financial statement reflected that she had a net monthly income of $2,077 per month and that her monthly expenses included residential maintenance, food and household supplies, household utilities, laundry, clothing, automobile gas and oil, automobile insurance, church donations, newspaper/magazines, yard expenses, credit card payments, and food and clothing allowances for her son. Georgia’s list of monthly expenses did not include an amount for property taxes and insurance, medical and dental insurance and expenses, entertainment, transportation other than vehicle, incidentals, automobile repairs, pest control, and charitable donations. R.L.’s initial 8.05 financial statement reflected that he earned a gross monthly income of $9,000. R.L. testified that after he realized that he had failed to consider the business expenses and rental property expenses, his monthly gross income was actually $2,000. The chancellor stated that there was no credible evidence that R.L. had $50,000 worth of medical bills, or that the rental properties did not self-service the debt owed. The record supports the chancellor’s finding that a disparity in income exists between the parties. Georgia’s 8.05 financial statement indicates that with her social security benefits and job as a cook and bus driver, she averages approximately $2,077 before taxes. However, when Georgia retires, she will receive only $369 per month from retirement. R.L.’s 2004 income tax return indicates that his yearly income as a truck driver was $156,646. Georgia’s 8.05 financial statement reflects a net monthly income of $1,844 with monthly expenses amounting to $1,130. R.L.’s 8.05 financial statement indicates a net monthly income of $9,000 with monthly expenses totaling $6,210.66. The facts indicate that the parties maintained a good standard of living. At the time of separation, R.L. was living with another woman, who drove one of his vehicles, which he made installment payments on. Georgia’s income alone was responsible for the household expenses and maintenance during the time of the parties’ separation. Given the evidence, the chancellor did not abuse her discretion when she awarded Georgia periodic alimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
