Graham v. Graham
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-02047-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-12-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution - Periodic alimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-30-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Chancery Court Judge: SARAH P. SPRINGER Disposition: GRANTED DIVORCE AND EQUITABLE DIVISION OF PROPERTY Case Number: 04-617-S |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John Willard Graham |
JAMES A. WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | Katrina Kay (Knight) Graham | WALTER T. ROGERS |
|
|
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: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution - Periodic alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Graham and Katrina Graham agreed to an irreconcilable differences divorce. The chancellor entered a judgment dividing the marital estate. John appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable distribution John argues that the chancellor’s decision was substantially unfair in awarding a convenience store the couple bought together to Katrina. The chancellor conducted a thorough analysis of the Ferguson factors and concluded that the store should be awarded to Katrina. Katrina has a tenth grade education and has never worked anywhere other than convenience and grocery stores. By contrast, John has experience working in other areas, such as truck driving and certain mechanical work. Therefore, Katrina has much less marketability for her skills than does John. John also argues that the value of the store was such that he should not have also been required to pay Katrina $11,000 which the court awarded to equalize the equitable distribution of real and personal property set out in the parties’ consent for divorce. A chancellor is tasked with making an equitable, not equal, distribution of the marital estate. Further, in making the equitable distribution, the chancellor must take the entirety of the marital estate into consideration, not just a single item. The chancellor’s order is supported by credible evidence. Issue 2: Periodic alimony John argues that he is entitled to periodic alimony because the chancellor awarded the store to Katrina, but failed to characterize the store as an “operating business.” The chancellor did in fact take John’s position into consideration. The chancellor ordered Katrina to pay John $2,500 a month, for three months. John is not entitled to receive any additional alimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
