Honea v. Honea


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-02410-COA
Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02410-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-05-2004
Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Separate maintenance - Excessive award
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-13-2003
Appealed from: Lee County Chancery Court
Judge: Rodney E. Shands
Disposition: PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR SEPARATE MAINTENANCE GRANTED. DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE DENIED.
Case Number: 2003-0597

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Ron Honea




J. MARK SHELTON JANA L. DAWSON



 

Appellee: Deborah D. Honea CHRISTOPHER E. KITCHENS KIMBERLY DROWN KITCHENS  

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: Separate maintenance - Excessive award

Summary of the Facts: Deborah Honea filed a complaint for separate maintenance or, in the alternative, for divorce and other relief against Ron Honea. Although Deborah later withdrew her complaint for divorce, Ron filed his own complaint for divorce. The chancellor denied Ron’s complaint for divorce and entered a decree of separate maintenance. The decree was later modified. Ron appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The chancellor awarded Deborah $1,800 a month in separate maintenance, and Ron argues this was error. The power of the chancellor to grant a wife's request for separate maintenance is based on separation without fault on the part of the wife and willful abandonment of the wife by the husband accompanied by a refusal to support her. The evidence proved that Deborah met the qualifications for separate maintenance in that no fault was alleged on her part for the separation and Deborah believed that the support Ron was willing to provide her was or either would soon become insufficient. Ron not only had reduced the amount he was willing to give her monthly but he had also written her a letter in which he declared his intent to reduce the amount by approximately $800 a month and then stop payment altogether a year afterwards. Ron also argues that Deborah is unwilling to resume the marital relationship and therefore the equitable remedy, in the form of separate maintenance, is inapplicable. The award of separate maintenance is to support Deborah until their assets and interests are reconciled to each other through divorce proceedings. The award given by the chancellor was fitting with its equitable purpose. Ron also argues that the separate maintenance award is excessive. In setting awards of separate maintenance, the court should consider the health of the husband and wife; their combined earning capacity; reasonable needs of the wife and children; necessary living expenses of the husband; the fact that the wife has free use of the home and furnishings; and other such facts and circumstances. After the separation Deborah was given exclusive use of the marital home but she had to make the mortgage payments to maintain possession. She had to leave the home because she did not have access to the necessary funds. While Deborah was hired by three employers, none of those positions were long term. Considering all of the factors, the chancellor’s award of separate maintenance was appropriate.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court