Sheffield v. Sheffield
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01974-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-01-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Desertion & Adultery - Alimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Myers, P.J., 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: 09-11-2009 Appealed from: Lowndes County Chancery Court Judge: Dorothy Winson Colom Disposition: Final Decree of Divorce and Order of Support Entered Case Number: 2007-0259-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Trenton Russell Sheffield, Jr. |
CARRIE A. JOURDAN |
||
| Appellee: | Mary Ann West Sheffield | JAMES C. HELVESTON |
|
|
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: Desertion & Adultery - Alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mary Ann Sheffield filed for divorce from Trenton Russell Sheffield, alleging desertion and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Mary Ann later amended her complaint to include adultery as an additional ground for divorce. The court granted the couple a divorce on the grounds of desertion and adultery and awarded Mary Ann $4,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. Russell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Russell does not take issue with the chancellor’s division of marital assets; however, he argues that the chancellor failed to consider the fact that Mary Ann received largely unencumbered assets while Russell received assets burdened with considerable debt. Russell argues that given the amount required to service the debt associated with the marital assets assigned to him, the alimony award exceeds his ability to pay. The equitable division of property, awards of alimony, whether lump-sum or periodic, and all other obligations imposed upon a payor spouse should all be considered together by the chancellor. When reviewing the reasonableness of an alimony award, an appellate court will consider the totality of the chancellor’s awards upon the divorced parties, including the benefit to the payee spouse and the concomitant burden placed upon the payor spouse. Although the chancellor awarded Russell his interests in SCI, RDI, and Batting, Russell argues that the chancellor failed to appropriately consider the outstanding debts associated with those interests when determining the alimony award. Despite being awarded nearly all of the income-producing assets, Russell complains that the award of alimony is unreasonable given the negative equity positions of SCI and RDI. While it is uncontested that SCI is highly leveraged, with liabilities exceeding assets by over $500,000, it is clear that SCI is capable of producing profits to service the debt. Furthermore, concludes that he cannot deploy the assets set apart to him in the divorce to produce sufficient income to service the debt secured by those assets, he has the option to liquidate those assets, retire the debt, and utilize the net proceeds in a more profitable endeavor. Mary Ann is fifty-four years old and in good health. However, given her lack of a college degree and long absence from the workforce, she has far less earning potential than Russell. While her separate property and the property she received via equitable division may offset her expenses, they are insufficient to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and do not eliminate the need for alimony. The chancellor properly considered the Armstrong factors, which included an inquiry into the obligations and assets of each party. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
