Parker v. Parker
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00675-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-25-2006 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Alimony - Finality of judgment - M.R.C.P. 54 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-01-2005 Appealed from: Hancock County Chancery Court Judge: Jim Persons Disposition: WIFE AWARDED $1500 IN ALIMONY PER MONTH Case Number: C2301-03-742-1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jesse (Jess) Parker, Jr. |
HAROLD O. GRISSOM |
||
| Appellee: | Beverly W. Parker | HERBERT J. STELLY |
|
|
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: Adultery - Alimony - Finality of judgment - M.R.C.P. 54 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Beverly Parker sought a divorce from Jesse Parker on the grounds of uncondoned adultery, to which Jesse confessed. The parties agreed to all but two contested issues in a property settlement, child custody and child support agreement, which the chancellor approved and incorporated into the judgment of divorce. The two issues preserved for trial were the apportionment of alimony and the distribution of tax liabilities from 2003. The chancellor awarded Beverly $1500 per month in periodic alimony. Jesse appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jesse argues that the chancellor applied the wrong legal standard in awarding alimony and that the chancellor’s alimony award was manifestly wrong. The record shows that Beverly made $16,000 in 2002, as compared to Jesse’s income which was barely shy of $80,000. Furthermore, while 2003 was a lucrative year for Jesse, as he earned over $100,000, nothing in the record indicates that Beverly’s income exceeded her regular income of $16,000. Beverly’s assets, including retirement, were approximately $119,598, while her liabilities, including the mortgage, totaled $92,741. Jesse’s assets and liabilities totaled $191,232 and $87,590, respectively. As reflected in the chancellor’s judgment and his order denying the motion to reconsider, the chancellor found a disparity in the households despite the division of assets and the payment of child support. The chancellor did not misapply the appropriate law. Jesse also argues that the court erred in failing to rule regarding certain tax liability incurred by Jesse in 2003. Notwithstanding the chancellor’s failure to explicitly state that he was ruling on the tax liability from 2003, the judgment was a final judgment in compliance with M.R.C.P. 54. It is clear from the chancellor’s order that the tax liability discussed in the motion for rehearing was different from the tax liability presented at trial. Furthermore, in ruling on the motion for rehearing, the court accommodated Jesse by allowing him to claim his daughter as a tax deduction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
