Coggins v. Coggins
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00959-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-14-2012 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Alimony - Lump-sum property distribution - Life insurance - Child support - Section 43-19-101 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-31-2010 Appealed from: Montgomery County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: GRANTED IRRECONCILABLE - DIFFERENCES DIVORCE; HUSBAND ORDERED TO PAY $1,009.95 PER MONTH IN CHILD SUPPORT; WIFE AWARDED $570 PER MONTH IN ALIMONY; HUSBAND ORDERED TO APPORTION LIFE INSURANCE PROCEEDS BETWEEN WIFE AND CHILD; HUSBAND ORDERED TO PAY WIFE FOR VEHICLE REPAIRS; PARTIES’ CUSTODY AND PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ADOPTED Case Number: 09-6-0110 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William Leddell Coggins, Jr. |
R. SHANE MCLAUGHLIN
NICOLE H. MCLAUGHLIN
D. KIRK THARP |
||
| Appellee: | Alicia Alvarado Coggins | ARNOLD F. GWIN PATRICIA A. RODGERS |
|
|
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 - Alimony - Lump-sum property distribution - Life insurance - Child support - Section 43-19-101 |
| Summary of the Facts: | William Coggins Jr. and Alicia Coggins filed a joint complaint for an irreconcilable-differences divorce. Prior to trial, the parties reached an agreement regarding property distribution and child custody. Alicia would receive physical custody of the couple’s daughter, and she also would receive three of the jointly owned rental properties (one of which she resides in), unencumbered and valued at $57,300. Bill received ten parcels of real property with equity totaling $188,325. The couple also agreed that Alicia would receive $25,000 from Bill in the property settlement. The disputed issues were alimony, child support, apportionment between life insurance beneficiaries, and expenses associated with the maintenance of Alicia’s vehicle. Utilizing the statutory child-support guidelines, the chancellor required Bill to pay child support in the amount of $1,009.95 per month. Regarding alimony, the chancellor fully analyzed the Armstrong factors and determined Bill should pay Alicia $570 per month permanent periodic alimony. Additionally, the chancellor ordered Bill’s $350,000 life insurance policy to list Alicia and Izabella as named beneficiaries of $175,000 each. Finally, Bill was required to pay Alicia $3,345.41 to reimburse her for repairs to her vehicle that Bill had previously agreed to pay. Bill appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Alimony Bill argues that the chancellor erred in awarding Alicia periodic alimony of $570 per month for a number of reasons, with the primary reason being the chancellor’s failure to consider the $25,000 lump-sum property distribution from Bill to Alicia to equalize the parties’ estates. Alimony should be considered only if an equitable division of marital property, considered with each party’s nonmarital assets, leaves a deficit for one party. If, however, after the property division, each party’s assets and income will adequately provide for them, no further award is required. Here, the chancellor determined that, in assessing the value of the separate estates of Bill and Alicia after equitable property distribution, a substantial deficiency existed that would allow the court to consider alimony. The chancellor found Alicia had net assets of $162,486.38. For Alicia, this figure included $57,300 in unencumbered real property, cash assets totaling $95,186.38, and a vehicle with $10,000 in equity. However, this figure did not include the $25,000 lump-sum property distribution that Bill was to make to Alicia under the property agreement. The chancellor’s omission of the $25,000 lump-sum property distribution in Alicia’s estate was error because the chancellor based the necessity of an Armstrong analysis on an inaccurate calculation of the parties’ estates. In response to Bill’s argument, Alicia states that future payments to satisfy property settlement agreements are not subject to equitable distribution and should not be considered by the chancellor in determining the marital estates. However, Alicia cites no authority for her proposition. Additionally, this is not the situation at bar. The issue over the $25,000 payment is not part of the determination of equitable distribution, but of alimony. Issue 2: Life insurance Bill had a life insurance policy for $350,000 on his life. At trial, the parties disputed whether the entire amount should be for the benefit of their daughter or a portion reserved for Alicia. The chancellor found that the proceeds should be apportioned equally with the daughter and Alicia both receiving $175,000. Bill argues the chancellor erred in apportioning $175,000 to Alicia and that the amount is excessive. While the chancellor did not require Bill to obtain a life insurance policy, the chancellor ordered a division of an already existing policy, with that decision apparently connected with the award of alimony and/or child support, both of which are proper. Life insurance serves a variety of purposes in divorce proceedings, such as to replace alimony, child support, or as part of the property division. However, if life insurance is associated with child support, it should be designated as such to avoid subsequent litigation. Since the chancellor did not specifically explain the reason for his ruling, and the award of alimony may be changed on remand, it is proper for the chancellor to reconsider the apportionment of life insurance proceeds on remand as well. Issue 3: Child support The chancellor found Bill’s adjusted gross income to be $7,213.93 per month. The court applied the statutory amount of fourteen percent to Bill’s adjusted gross income, resulting in $1,009.05 per month child support. The chancellor rejected Bill’s argument that the monthly expenses incurred from his rental investments should be deducted from his gross income, which he receives from his primary employer. Bill raises this argument again on appeal. The inclusion of income and deductions for calculating adjusted gross income for child support is primarily mandated by statute. According to section 43-19-101, in calculating gross income, the chancellor must consider “gross income from all potential sources,” including wages and salary income, income from self-employment, and income from investments. As the chancellor explained, section 43-19-101(3)(b) lists several deductions that may be subtracted from the gross income figure, such as federal, state, and local taxes, social-security contributions, and mandatory retirement and disability contributions, but it does not list business expenses. Additionally, the Mississippi Supreme Court has allowed the deduction of legitimate business expenses in the case of a self-employed payor-spouse. There is no caselaw that allows for a deduction of expenses related to investments or supplemental business enterprises, which would be taken from the gross income of the payor-spouse. Bill is not self-employed; his position as a riverboat pilot provides a set salary. Alternatively, his rental properties, which he began purchasing in 1995, are a secondary source of income that he voluntarily continued, even though they were operating at a loss at the time of trial. If Bill opts to continue this rental venture at a loss, it should not be done to the detriment of his child. There is no error on this issue. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
