Meador v. Meador


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-00776-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-24-2010
Opinion Author: Myers, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Marital assets - Alimony - Attorney's fees
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., 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: 04-08-2009
Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court
Judge: Eugene "Gene" Fair
Disposition: GRANTED DIVORCE, DIVIDED MARITAL ASSETS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND DECLINED TO AWARD ALIMONY AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
Case Number: 2007-0412

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Deborah Ann Meador




S. CHRISTOPHER FARRIS



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: Willie W. Meador, Jr. BRAD RODRICK THOMPSON  

    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 - Marital assets - Alimony - Attorney's fees

    Summary of the Facts: Deborah Meador was granted a divorce on the ground of uncondoned adultery from Willie Meador Jr. The chancellor ordered all tangible personal property to be divided by the parties as agreed upon by them in open court. According to the judgment, Deborah retains ownership and benefit of her annuity ($5,208), her state retirement benefits ($91,987), and her deferred compensation account with the state ($21,819), with all free of any claim by Willie. Willie retains his 401(k) ($31,894) with his employer free of any claim by Deborah. Willie has the option to purchase from Deborah her interest in the marital home for an amount equal to one-half of the difference between the current principal balance of indebtedness ($139,168) and the home’s appraised value ($215,000). If Willie fails to do so, the marital home is to be sold, and the proceeds of the sale divided equally between the parties. Willie also has the option to purchase Deborah’s marital interest in the undeveloped lot located next to the marital home. Otherwise, it will be sold, either jointly with the marital home or as a separate parcel, and the proceeds will be divided equally. The lot is valued at $39,000, and Deborah’s interest therein amounts to $19,500. Both parties are liable for their own short-term personal debts. The chancellor ordered that Willie shall remain liable for the approximately $96,000 he owes on educational loans. The chancellor declined to award any type of alimony to either party, and he held each party responsible for paying his and her own attorney’s fees and expenses. Deborah appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Marital assets Much of the testimony and exhibits presented to the chancellor in this case pertained to the status of “George’s Liquor Store.” Deborah maintains that Willie has an ownership and/or financial interest in the liquor store, and she argues that the chancellor ignored the compelling circumstantial evidence of proof. Willie testified he does not have an ownership interest in the liquor store and has never received any type of compensation from the owner, other than reimbursements for purchases he made for the store with his own credit card. Based upon the evidence presented, the chancellor found that Willie neither had any ownership interest in the liquor store nor received any income for helping the owner manage it. Therefore, neither did the marital estate. Whether Willie had any ownership interest or financial interest in the liquor store, which could be said constituted a marital asset, was a question of fact for the chancellor to decide. Willie’s bank records and those for the liquor store were submitted into evidence for the chancellor’s consideration, and neither showed that Willie received any income for his time and services at the liquor store. Thus, there was no manifest error with the chancellor’s factual findings on this issue. Issue 2: Alimony Deborah argues that the chancellor’s decision not to award her either periodic or rehabilitative alimony was a clear abuse of discretion. Periodic alimony is based on need, and it 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. Rehabilitative alimony is an equitable mechanism which allows a party needing assistance to become self-supporting without becoming destitute in the interim. Deborah maintains that her testimony and supporting documents reveal a wife that left a longtime marriage because of her husband’s admitted adulterous affairs, with the latest affair being with a woman thirty-plus years his junior. She left with the clothes on her back, a car note, and monthly living expenses in an apartment in Jackson. She reiterates that Willie, on the other hand, makes $3,000 a month more than her, and he also has time to manage a liquor store without compensation. The chancellor’s findings with regard to the Armstrong factors are supported by substantial evidence that was adduced from the testimonies and exhibits presented. The record reveals that Deborah is a hard-working individual with impressive credentials, which she obtained over the course of the couples’ marriage, with support contributed by Willie. Deborah has her own separate income with the capacity to earn more income. She has worked in the public school system both as a teacher and as an administrator for twenty-nine and one-half years, and she has that amount of service time vested in the state’s retirement system. Willie currently earns more income than Deborah, but he is at the top of his earning capacity. Willie’s direct economic contribution to the couple’s two sons and to a good lifestyle for himself and Deborah was significant and has left him without significant assets for retirement. Thus, there is no abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s decision not to award Deborah either periodic or rehabilitative alimony. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees Deborah offered into evidence a detailed statement of her attorney’s fees, which totaled $12,442 for hourly work and $1,154 for expenses. Deborah testified that she borrowed the funds from her mother and did not have the current ability to pay the outstanding balance. However, the chancellor found that Deborah was capable of paying her own attorney’s fees. When a party is able to pay attorney’s fees, an award of attorney’s fees is not appropriate. But where the evidence shows an inability to pay and a disparity in the relative financial positions of the parties, there is no error in awarding attorney’s fees. The record in this case supports the chancellor’s findings.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court