Pierce v. Pierce
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00161-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-24-2010 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Distribution of marital property - Termination of alimony based on child-related event Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-19-2008 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Carter Bise Disposition: DIVIDED MARITAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES; AWARDED WIFE PERIODIC ALIMONY, USE OF MARITAL HOME, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES Case Number: C2402-08-00038-4 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Martin L. Pierce |
M. CHANNING POWELL, WENDY C. HOLLINGSWORTH |
|
|
| Appellee: | Star L. Pierce | WILLIAM E. TISDALE | ||
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 - Distribution of marital property - Termination of alimony based on child-related event |
| Summary of the Facts: | Martin Pierce filed for divorce from Star Pierce in the state of Washington. The Washington court granted Martin a divorce, but because it lacked personal jurisdiction over Star, it did not address the distribution of property. Martin filed suit in the Harrison County Chancery Court seeking distribution of the marital property. The chancellor awarded Star $500 monthly permanent alimony; $700 monthly alimony to pay the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the couple’s Biloxi home; half of Martin’s Thrift Savings Plan; 65% of Martin’s military retirement account that accrued during the marriage; and Martin’s military Survivor’s Benefits Annuity. Martin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Martin argues that the property division and alimony award as a whole is excessive, in part, because Star’s testimony regarding her monthly income is different from that reported on her Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 disclosure statements. He also argues there is no basis for awarding Star 65% of his military retirement account that had accrued during the marriage or for awarding Star his military survivor’s benefits. Periodic alimony should only be considered when the chancellor determines that one spouse has suffered a disparity of income and standard of living following the property division. Chancellors must divide the marital estate equitably, not necessarily equally. And under some circumstances an unequal division may be necessary. Here, the chancellor found Star has no earning capacity comparable to Martin, and her income is extremely limited. Though Star testified she works at both McDonald’s and as a substitute teacher, she claimed her take home pay is approximately $628 per month. Star has no retirement savings and has excessive monthly expenses due to her medical problems. The Navy trained Martin in various fields, and he now earns approximately $3,663 per month. Further, Martin has no medical issue limiting his employment opportunities. The chancellor did not manifestly err in considering the parties’ earning capacities and future needs. However, the chancellor failed to make sufficient factual findings regarding Star’s contributions to Martin’s military retirement account and military survivor’s benefits. The chancellor required Martin to name Star as the beneficiary of his military Survivor’s Benefits Annuity. Essentially, this means if Star outlives Martin, she will receive a portion of his monthly retirement pay. Because this benefit is assigned to Star, Martin is unable to provide the same benefit to his current wife or future children. Further, the amount of retirement income Martin would receive each month will be reduced to pay for the survivor’s benefits. But the chancellor made no findings that Star made any contribution to the military retirement funds. Indeed, the chancellor found the accumulation of Martin’s retirement benefits solely resulted from Martin’s efforts. There is also no finding that Star contributed money to paying family expenses rather than to building her own retirement. Factual findings are required before an award of this type is warranted. Since property division and alimony awards should be considered together, these awards are also remanded for further consideration by the chancellor. The chancellor also ordered Martin to pay the house note, including taxes and insurance, until Star remarries or her daughter graduates from high school or leaves the home. Martin argues that terminating his payments on a child-related event converts the payments to a sort of quasi child support instead of alimony, which he claims is impermissible. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a payment designated as alimony, but which terminates upon a child-related event, will be treated as child support. On remand, the chancellor should avoid triggering any alimony award on a life event of Star’s daughter from another marriage, since Martin has no legal duty to provide for the daughter’s support. The chancellor awarded Star $2,000 toward her attorney’s fees after considering her financial resources and Martin’s financial ability to pay. Martin argues that reversal of the property division requires reversal of alimony and attorney’s fees. Though the chancellor’s award of attorney’s fees appears reasonable, the chancellor may revisit this issue on remand. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
