Yelverton v. Yelverton


<- Return to Search Results


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

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-22-2006
Opinion Author: Myers, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed on direct and cross-appeal

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce - Lump sum alimony - Child support - Periodic alimony - Attorney’s fees - Payment of loan
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Southwick, Chandler, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Irving, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Griffis, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-29-2004
Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court
Judge: Carter Bise
Disposition: JAMES YELVERTON ORDERED TO PAY RHONDA YELVERTON $250,000 IN LUMP SUM ALIMONY, $2,500 PER MONTH IN PERIODIC ALIMONY AND $2,500 PER MONTH IN CHILD SUPPORT.
Case Number: 02-00364

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: James B. Yelverton




MICHAEL J. MALOUF, MELISSA 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 - Periodic alimony - Attorney’s fees - Payment of loan

Summary of the Facts: Rhonda Yelverton was awarded a divorce from her husband, James Yelverton. The chancellor ordered the homes to be sold with the equity divided between Rhonda and James. The chancellor further ordered James to pay Rhonda lump sum alimony in the amount of $250,000 (at a minimum of $5,000 per month), periodic alimony in the amount of $2,500 per month, child support in the amount of $2,500 per month and twenty-five percent of his annual adjusted gross income over and above $150,000. James appeals, and Rhonda cross-appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Lump sum alimony James argues that the chancellor erred when he awarded Rhonda lump sum alimony in the amount of $250,000. Factors to consider when awarding lump sum alimony include substantial contribution to accumulation of total wealth by either assisting in the spouse’s business or quitting a job to stay home with the children; length of the marriage; where recipient spouse has no other income or other estate is meager by comparison; without the lump sum, the receiver would have no financial security. All these factors have been met. Rhonda and James were married for over fourteen years, and other than Rhonda’s part- time job as a nurse she had no other source of income. Rhonda did have a small savings account when the couple separated; however, that account had been depleted due to James’s failure to pay the court ordered support. James argues that he offered to sell both residences along with stock in the company so that all could be divided. However, after the chancellor ordered him to sell the Magnolia property, he still refused to sell. Rhonda followed the order of the court and sold the marital residence and divided the equity between the two parties. As a result of this sale and James’ refusal to pay the lump sum alimony, the periodic alimony and the child support, which were all ordered by the court, Rhonda and the two minor children were forced to move into a small apartment. Therefore, it was not manifestly wrong for the chancellor to order James to pay Rhonda lump sum alimony in the amount of $250,000. Issue 2: Child support James argues that the court did not follow the guidelines when determining the amount of child support he should pay. Since James makes more than $50,000 the chancellor does not have to follow the statutory guidelines. In addition, the chancellor explained in detail why he deviated from the statutory guidelines. The chancellor concluded that James was capable of earning at least $12,000 per month after taxes. James argues that he will remain in contempt because he is unable to pay this amount in child support. However, the evidence shows that James is not unable, but unwilling to pay this amount. Issue 3: Periodic alimony James argues that the court erred in applying the twelve factors considered when determining periodic alimony. However, the chancellor gave a detailed assessment of all the factors in accordance with the evidence presented during the trial. Issue 4: Attorneys’ fees James argues that the chancellor is ordering him to pay Rhonda’s attorneys’ fees because he purchased two plasma televisions. A portion of these fees were incurred as a result of contempt proceedings because James refused to follow the temporary order, and James took actions to prevent Rhonda from discovering his net worth. Since James was held in contempt for violating the temporary order of the court, attorneys’ fees should be awarded to Rhonda for seeking enforcement of that order. Issue 5: Payment of loan Rhonda argues that the chancellor erred in ruling, during the motion hearing for reconsideration, that $25,000 was to be paid back to Jim Yelverton Imports prior to dividing the equity remaining from the Magnolia property. Shortly after James moved into the Magnolia property, he borrowed $25,000 for a down payment from Jim Yelverton Imports and financed the remainder of the purchase price through the bank. However, James refused to sell this property and since it has been foreclosed upon the issue is moot.


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