Holley v. Holley
| Docket Number: | 2002-CT-00296-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CA-00296-COA ; 2002-CA-00296-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-16-2004 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part, and the Judgment of the Chancery Court is Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Remanded in Part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Alimony Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Easley, JJ. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-15-2002 Appealed from: Lowndes County Chancery Court Judge: James S. Gore Disposition: JUDGMENT GRANTING DIVORCE TO WIFE. Case Number: 2001-0793 |
|
| Note: | The supreme court reversed the court of appeals as to alimony and remanded the case to the trial court for determination of type and amount of alimony. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Danny L. Holley |
MARK G. WILLIAMSON |
||
| Appellee: | Wanda S. Holley | JOHN W. CROWELL |
|
|
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 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Wanda Holley was granted a divorce from Danny Holley on the ground of uncondoned adultery. The chancellor ordered Danny to pay $2,000 per month in periodic alimony (for a period of 60 months) and $400 per child per month as child support. Danny appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the child support award and reversed and rendered the order of alimony. Wanda filed a petition for writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court granted. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals held that the chancellor's decision to award alimony was manifest error, because the evidence in the record is inconsistent with an award of alimony. Wanda argues that the Court of Appeals erred because, as the authorities mandate, the test is not whether the evidence is inconsistent with an alimony award but whether there is any substantial credible evidence to support the findings of a chancellor. The Court of Appeals noted that the purpose of alimony is not punitive but is designed to assist the spouse in meeting his or her reasonable needs while transitioning into a new life. The chancellor properly made that distinction and, in fact, used that very language in the judgment. The point of dispute between the parties is whether Danny’s most recent earning history indicates a true decrease from his past six-year earning history. Even though the chancellor did state that Armstrong provided the relevant guidelines to follow for determining an alimony award, he failed to delineate his reasoning and analysis regarding the amount and type of alimony to be distributed. The alimony awarded to Wanda is characterized as rehabilitative periodic alimony. Rehabilitative periodic alimony is meant not to be an equalizer between the parties but is meant to allow the party with lesser financial ability to start anew without being destitute in the interim. Because the record shows that Wanda has a stable, professional position and did not put her career on hold at any time during the marriage, rehabilitative periodic alimony was arguably not the appropriate type of alimony in this case. The Court of Appeals should have remanded this case to the chancellor for findings of fact and application of the Armstrong guidelines on the issue of alimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
