Burwell v. Burwell
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01510-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-14-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Modification of alimony - Calculation of income Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., 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: 08-15-2008 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Sanford Steckler Disposition: REDUCED MONTHLY ALIMONY PAYMENTS TO $5,685 AND ORDERED HUSBAND TO PAY $77,405 IN ARREARAGE Case Number: C2401-97-02034 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Dudley S. Burwell |
HAROLD O. GRISSOM JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Rose Lee Burwell | WOODROW W. PRINGLE III |
|
|
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: | Modification of alimony - Calculation of income |
| Summary of the Facts: | Pursuant to a divorce agreement, Dudley S. Burwell was required to pay Rose Lee Burwell $6,000 per month in alimony. After Dudley filed a petition for reduction of alimony, he and Rose agreed to temporarily reduce his alimony obligation to $5,000 per month, pending a determination by the chancery court of the merits of his petition. The chancery court did not rule on Dudley’s petition until several years later, but it found that Dudley was entitled to a reduction in his monthly alimony payments and that the proper amount of monthly alimony is $5,685. The chancellor ordered that Dudley would pay that amount in alimony starting on September 1, 2008. The chancellor also ordered Dudley to pay Rose $77,405, representing the difference between $5,000 and $5,685 for the more than nine years, plus interest, in which Dudley had been paying only $5,000 per month in alimony. Dudley appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Dudley argues that the chancellor improperly averaged Culumber’s income-loss percentages, rather than comparing 1997, 1998, and 1999 to 1996 individually. Dudley contends that, calculated his way, his percentage of loss of income during the time in question was 17.4769%. Dudley has provided no authority in support of his argument that the chancellor should have used a different method to calculate Dudley’s loss in income for the time in question. The chancellor made a logical calculation based on Culumber’s analysis, and there has been no suggestion that Culumber’s calculations are incorrect. There is no error with the chancellor’s calculations and conclusions. The chancellor averaged Dudley’s increases and decreases in annual income for the period in question to determine that Dudley had suffered a 5.25% loss in income. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
