Yelverton v. Yelverton


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-CT-01684-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-01684-COA ; 2004-CT-01684-SCT ; 2004-CA-01684-COA

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-26-2007
Opinion Author: Carlson, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce - Lump sum alimony - Child support - Section 43-19-101 - Periodic alimony - Value of dealership
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Diaz, P.JJ., Easley, Graves, Dickinson, Randolph and Lamar, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Writ of Certiorari: Yes
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-29-2004
Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court
Judge: Carter Bise
Disposition: The Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Harrison County entered a final judgment granting Rhonda H. Yelverton (Rhonda) a divorce from James B. Yelverton and ordering James to pay Rhonda lump sum alimony in the amount of $250,000 (with minimum monthly payments of $5,000); child support in the amount of $2,500 per month; periodic alimony in the amount of $2,500 per month; twenty-five percent of James’s annual adjusted gross income above $150,000; and $10,000 in attorney’s fees.
Case Number: 02-00364

Note: This opinion reverses the Court of Appeals and directs the chancellor to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the the Ferguson factors.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: JAMES B. YELVERTON




MICHAEL J. MALOUF MELISSA A. MALOUF



 

Appellee: RHONDA H. YELVERTON DAMON SCOTT GIBSON  

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 - Lump sum alimony - Child support - Section 43-19-101 - Periodic alimony - Value of dealership

Summary of the Facts: Rhonda Yelverton was granted a divorce from James Yelverton. The court ordered James to pay Rhonda lump sum alimony in the amount of $250,000 (with minimum monthly payments of $5,000); child support in the amount of $2,500 per month; periodic alimony in the amount of $2,500 per month; twenty-five percent of James’s annual adjusted gross income above $150,000; and $10,000 in attorney’s fees. James appealed, and Rhonda cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed on both direct and cross appeal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Lump sum alimony James argues that the chancellor failed to apply the Cheatham factors with regard to lump sum alimony. The Cheatham factors are encompassed within the Ferguson factors. The trial court never set out or applied the Cheatham factors or the Ferguson factors. The Court of Appeals outlined the Cheatham factors, but with little discussion. Since the chancellor failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the Ferguson factors, the case is reversed on this issue and remanded to the trial court to revisit this issue. Issue 2: Child support James argues that the chancellor failed to make findings to support his deviation from the child support guidelines as required by section 43-19-101. Subsection (4) of section 43-19-101 no doubt applies, since James’s adjusted gross income was unquestionably well above $50,000; however, the chancellor’s findings in today’s case fell short of subsection (4)’s requirement that the court shall make a written finding in the record as to whether or not the application of the guidelines established in this section is reasonable. Likewise, subsection (4) must be read in conjunction with subsection (2). The chancellor failed to fully comply with section 43-19-101(2) by making a written finding or specific finding on the record. The chancery court required James to pay an extra hundred dollars a month for child support, which was a clear deviation from the guidelines. The chancellor, on remand, will be required to reevaluate James’s net worth. Upon revisiting this issue, should the chancellor decide again to deviate from the statutory guidelines, the chancellor must make a specific, on-the-record finding. Issue 3: Periodic alimony Although recognizing that James had to spend $6,429 per month on his expenses, the chancellor ordered James to pay Rhonda $10,000 per month. This award would give Rhonda approximately $12,118.65 a month, although her monthly expenses totaled only $6,000, and would leave James with a negative balance of $4,429 per month. Such action by the chancellor leaves James destitute and in hopeless continuous contempt of court. Furthermore the award is not equitable and fair and is per se unreasonable. Issue 4: Value of dealership James argues that the chancellor was manifestly wrong in his calculation of the value of Jim Yelverton Imports. The chancellor determined that James’s 48 percent minority interest in Jim Yelverton Imports amounted to $490,974 and that James was capable of earning $12,000 per month after taxes. On remand, the chancellor should again re-evaluate James’s value in Jim Yelverton Imports which should exclude goodwill.


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