Elam v. Hinson
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00844-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-20-2006 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable division of marital assets - Lump sum alimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-01-2002 Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court Judge: Jane R. Weathersby Disposition: FINDINGS OF FACT AND FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED. Case Number: 2001-248GN |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2003-CA-00239-COA Andrea Carol Marshall Hinson v. Melvin Hinson; Warren Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2001-248GN; Ruling Date: 10/01/2002; Ruling Judge: Jane Weathersby | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Andrea Marshall Elam f/k/a Andrea Carol Marshall Hinson |
B. BLAKE TELLER |
||
| Appellee: | Melvin Hinson | EDWIN WOODS |
|
|
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 division of marital assets - Lump sum alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Andrea Hinson filed for divorce from Melvin Hinson on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and adultery, or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Melvin counterclaimed alleging similar grounds. Both parties then withdrew their fault-based grounds for divorce and agreed to a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The issues of property settlement, alimony, and child support and custody were tried before a chancellor. The chancellor granted Andrea physical custody of the parties’ two minor children, divided the marital property, and awarded periodic alimony to Andrea. Andrea appealed, and the Court of Appeals found that it did not have jurisdiction to review Andrea’s appeal because no final judgment of divorce had been entered by the chancery court. The chancellor entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered a final judgment of divorce. Andrea appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable division of marital assets Andrea argues that she should be awarded $165,000 in cash and other assets to more equitably divide the marital property. The chancellor, in dividing the marital property, found that the plumbing company owned by Melvin’s family generated the revenue that provided for the family and led to the accumulated property. The chancellor also found that Melvin operated the plumbing business with very little help from Andrea. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. As the chancellor noted, Andrea appears to have devoted her time during the marriage toward obtaining both an undergraduate and a graduate degree, and then teaching full-time. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the chancellor based her decision to allow Melvin to retain the assets of the business in order that he may continue to pay those financial obligations ordered by the court. As to Andrea’s claim that she should receive $50,000 of Melvin’s cash assets, the value of these assets was not established at trial. Because the only evidence on the amount of cash assets was the conflicting testimony of the parties, the chancellor was entitled to weigh Melvin’s testimony as more persuasive. Issue 2: Lump sum alimony Andrea argues that she is entitled to an award of lump sum alimony because she assisted in the plumbing business, and because she claims that the chancellor’s award does not afford her the same standard of living to which she was accustomed prior to the parties’ divorce. The facts presented at trial showed that Andrea never quit a job to become a housewife. In fact, Melvin provided a maid so that Andrea could pursue her teaching career. It is undisputed that Andrea had a separate income at the time of the trial. Andrea claims that her separate income was meager in comparison to Melvin’s. Testimony at trial indicated that Melvin was left with approximately $80,000 of income per year, without benefits, while Andrea made approximately $30,000 per year with benefits. Andrea’s income was not “meager” in comparison to Melvin’s, especially in light of the fact that she would be receiving periodic alimony and child support from Melvin on a monthly basis. Also, the fact that Andrea’s salary includes health benefits and Melvin’s does not closes the gap between the parties’ respective incomes. While her standard of living may change, there is no proof that Andrea will lack financial security because she did not receive a lump sum alimony award. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
