Thompson v. Thompson
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00223-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00223-SCT ; 2003-CA-00223-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-14-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable division of marital assets - Alimony - Child support - Income tax exemption - Education accounts Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS Writ of Certiorari: Denied Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-09-2002 Appealed from: Washington County Chancery Court Judge: Ceola James Disposition: DIVORCE JUDGMENT, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS AND CHILD SUPPORT Case Number: 00723 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Anne Callaway Sweat Thompson |
LEE DAVIS THAMES
J. MACK VARNER |
||
| Appellee: | Allen Hale Thompson | FRITZIE LOUISE TONEY ROSS JOEL J. HENDERSON |
|
|
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 - Alimony - Child support - Income tax exemption - Education accounts |
| Summary of the Facts: | Anne Thompson and Allen Thompson were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. The chancellor awarded Anne custody of the couple’s three children and $400 a month per child in child support. The chancellor denied periodic alimony, but awarded Anne $50,000 in lump sum alimony. The chancellor noted that Anne had accumulated $17,000 in credit card debt, while caring for the children since the parties' separation, and ordered Allen to pay this amount. The chancellor allowed Allen to claim one of the children on his income tax returns. Allen and Anne each received a half interest in the marital home. Allen and Anne received their retirements, valued at $178,653 and $11,655, respectively. Anne appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable division of marital assets Anne argues that the chancellor failed to equitably divide the couple’s assets, because the chancellor failed to consider Allen's investments and retirement accounts as marital property. Anne and Allen jointly owned their residence and household furnishings. During the marriage, Allen acquired an equity ownership interest in seven entities. Allen also contributed to two separate retirement accounts through his employment with the Greenville Clinic valued at $178,653. Allen’s financial statement, introduced through his certified public accountant, indicated that his net worth was $302,226. Anne owned one asset, her Delta Medical Center retirement account, valued at $11,655. Here, the chancellor’s specific findings were deficient. The chancellor failed to classify the assets and failed to render written findings on the Ferguson factors. The case is remanded for specific findings. Since all of Anne’s and Allen’s assets were acquired or accumulated during their marriage, the chancellor should have first classified their assets as marital property, subject to equitable division, and their contributions should have been considered of equal value. Since the case is remanded for further consideration of equitable division, the chancellor should revisit the awards of alimony and child support after she has properly classified and divided the marital assets. The chancellor’s opinion and judgment contained no written findings as to whether the statutory guidelines for child support were reasonable or whether a departure was appropriate. On remand, the chancellor should consider the statutory guidelines and make a written determination of whether the guidelines are reasonable given the facts of this case. Issue 2: Income tax exemption Anne argues that the chancellor erred in allowing Allen, the non-custodial parent, to claim one of the children on his income tax return. Factors to be considered in determining whether to award an income tax exemption to a non-custodial parent include the value of the exemption at the marginal tax rate of each parent, the income of each parent, the age of the children, the percentage of the cost of supporting the children borne by each parent, and the financial burden assumed by each parent under the property settlement in the case. The chancellor may consider the appropriate allocation of the tax exemptions on remand. Issue 3: Education accounts Anne argues that the chancellor erred in placing Allen as the sole custodian of the children's education accounts. The chancellor, in placing Allen as custodian of the accounts, found that Allen set up the accounts and provided the funding for the accounts. The chancellor noted Anne's testimony that Allen sometimes withdrew money from the accounts, but ruled that the duty to provide college funding is not absolute. On remand, the chancellor will again be able to consider this question. If indeed Allen may use the funds for any purpose other than the children’s education, the custodial accounts may, or possibly should, be classified as marital property subject to equitable distribution. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
