Sandlin v. Sandlin
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00371-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-30-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Custody - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Marital home - Alimony Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CUSTODY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-11-2002 Appealed from: Chickasaw County Chancery Court Judge: James S. Gore Disposition: AWARDED CUSTODY OF MINOR FEMALE TO THE MOTHER AND DISTRIBUTED MARITAL ASSETS Case Number: 2002-0010-2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ricky C. Sandlin |
J. DUDLEY WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | Sandra Denise Sandlin | TINA MARIE DUGARD SCOTT |
|
|
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 - Custody - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Marital home - Alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ricky Sandlin filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Sandra Sandlin on the ground of adultery or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Sandra filed a counterclaim seeking divorce on the ground of habitual, cruel and inhuman treatment or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. The chancellor granted Ricky’s request for divorce from Sandra on the ground of adultery and awarded him custody of one of the couple’s children but gave Sandra custody of the other child and possession of the marital home. Ricky appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Custody Ricky argues that Sandra was erroneously awarded custody of the daughter, because the judgment of the court is clearly contrary to her best interest. When determining whom should be awarded custody of the two children, the chancellor found that the ages of the children, fifteen and twelve, respectively, favored neither parent; the health and sex of the son favored Ricky, and the health and sex of the daughter favored Sandra; continuity of care for the children favored Sandra; parenting skills were essentially equal and favored neither parent; both parents were willing and able to provide primary care for the children; employment responsibilities favored Sandra because Ricky’s were more restrictive; both parents were in good mental and physical health; emotional ties were split; moral fitness favored Ricky; the home, school, and community records of the children were good; the son preferred to live with Ricky, and the daughter preferred to live with Sandra; both parents could provide a stable home and had stable employment; and the families of both parents offered a strong support system to help rear the children. Because Ricky fails to cite any authority to support his argument, the issue is procedurally barred under M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6). Ricky’s argument also fails on the merits. The chancellor’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Issue 2: Marital home Ricky argues that the chancellor’s decision to award Sandra the marital home is an affront to basic principles of equity, since Sandra’s adulterous relationship was detrimental to the stability and harmony of the marriage. Although Sandra was awarded the marital home, she was also ordered to pay any indebtedness consistent with such ownership. Furthermore, any inequity possibly suffered by Ricky is clearly offset by the fact that he was awarded sole possession of his retirement benefits in addition to not being required to make alimony payments. Issue 3: Alimony Sandra argues that she should have been awarded alimony since Ricky’s income and earning capacity is almost three times that of Sandra’s. Alimony is considered only after the marital property has been equitably divided and the chancellor determines one spouse has suffered a deficit. The denial of alimony does not leave Sandra destitute. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
