Chmelicek v. Chmelicek
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01736-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01736-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-24-2010 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Equitable distribution - Periodic alimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, J., dissents without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-23-2008 Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: DIVORCE BASED ON UNCONDONED ADULTERY AND DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS AND AWARD OF ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT TO DIANNA Case Number: 07-0489-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | John Chmelicek |
RENEE M. PORTER |
|
|
| Appellee: | Dianna Chmelicek | SAMUEL E. FARRIS | ||
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 - Equitable distribution - Periodic alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dianna Chmelicek filed a complaint for divorce from John Chmelicek. Prior to the trial, the parties stipulated that a divorce should be granted to Dianna based on the ground of John’s adultery; the parties would have joint legal custody of the children; Dianna would have physical custody of the children; and John would have visitation with the children. The issues that remained for the chancellor to decide were the equitable division of property, alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees. The court awarded Dianna child support in the amount of $4,400 per month and $6,000 per month in alimony. John was to maintain his current life-insurance policies, with coverage of $350,000, and name the children as beneficiaries. John was awarded ownership of the marital home, and Dianna was given credit for one half of the existing equity, or $8,500. Dianna was awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $20,000. John appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable distribution The chancellor determined that all of the parties’ property was marital. John argues that the chancellor committed error in his consideration of the Ferguson factors in dividing the property. The chancellor’s judgment does not include specific findings of fact or conclusions of law that would indicate that the chancellor considered each of the Ferguson guidelines and how he applied the guidelines to the evidence presented in this case. Instead, the chancellor’s judgment simply announces his division of the marital property and other financial awards. The chancellor's failure to explain the basis for his decision is error and the case is remanded for the chancellor to make specific findings and conclusions of law as to the Ferguson guidelines and the equitable division of property. Issue 2: Periodic alimony The chancellor awarded $6,000 per month to Dianna of periodic alimony. John argues that the chancellor erred because: he used the wrong legal standard by not correctly applying the Armstrong factors; the award was excessive; and Dianna should have been awarded rehabilitative alimony instead of periodic alimony. The chancellor’s reasoning does not amount to an on-the record analysis of the relevant Armstrong factors. Indeed, the chancellor’s judgment provides a couple of conclusory statements and says that the chancellor considered the Armstrong factors. There are several of Armstrong factors that required an in-depth analysis. Although his annual gross income was in excess of $400,000, John’s income was not sufficient to maintain the family’s extravagant lifestyle. Even if the marriage had continued, John and Dianna would eventually have had to either earn more income, cut back on their spending, or file for bankruptcy. Although John was admittedly at fault for the dissolution of the marriage, the chancellor had an obligation to dissolve the marriage and their financial relationship in a manner that was equitable, fair, and just. The chancellor must explain his reasoning as to how, through the judgment of divorce, the marital debts were to be paid or how their lifestyles would be altered in order to satisfy their marital debts. Since this case is being remanded for further consideration of equitable division of assets and periodic alimony, on remand the chancellor will have all the tools of marital dissolution available: equitable division, lump-sum alimony, and periodic alimony. Likewise, the chancellor may revisit the award of attorney’s fees. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
