Picard v. Picard
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-01557-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-03-2012 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Marital home - Equitable distribution - Periodic alimony - Tax exemptions Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-20-2009 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: G. Charles Bordis, IV Disposition: PARTIES DIVORCED AND ASSETS DISTRIBUTED Case Number: 2007-0370CB |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Glen Picard |
CALVIN D. TAYLOR |
|
|
| Appellee: | Paula Picard | WILLIAM E. TISDALE | ||
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 - Marital home - Equitable distribution - Periodic alimony - Tax exemptions |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2007, Glen Picard filed for divorce from his wife, Paula Picard. In 2008, the chancellor entered a judgment of divorce. Two years later, Glen moved to alter or amend the judgment and alternatively requested a new trial. The chancellor denied Glen’s request, and Glen appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Marital home Glen challenges the distribution of equity and costs of the marital home. In the chancellor’s ruling, he reviewed the appraisal of the home and determined the home was valued at $127,000 in its then-current condition, without the completion of repairs needed after Hurricane Katrina. An analysis of the home’s mortgage debt resulted in the chancellor subtracting the property’s principle balance of $83,674.56, leaving a net equity of the home of $43,325.44. Paula was awarded the remaining Hurricane Katrina grant money, which totaled $8,307.78. However, Paula was charged with using the funds only for repairs to the marital home and was ordered to provide proof to Glen that she had expended the grant money to repair the marital home. After doing so, the chancellor assigned the net equity in the home a value of $51, 633.22. Upon the parties’ children reaching the age of majority, the chancery court ordered that the house should be sold and the profits equally divided between Glen and Paula. Furthermore, while Paula was granted possession of the home in which to reside with the four children, the chancellor ordered Glen and Paula to equally divide the home’s monthly mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, costs of reasonable repairs, and costs of general upkeep. As such, the debt and equity of the home were divided fairly between Glen and Paula, with both sharing equally all monetary matters relating to the home. The only advantage Paula was given with regard to the marital home was the ability to live in the home. However, since Paula was granted custody of the four children, this was not an abuse of the chancellor’s discretion. Issue 2: Alimony The chancellor ordered that Glen pay the cost of COBRA health-insurance coverage for Paula up to the maximum amount of time allowed under the policy. Once the COBRA coverage expires, Glen must pay $250 a month in periodic alimony until Paula remarries, cohabitates, or begins receiving a portion of Glen’s military retirement, whichever occurs first. Glen argues that this was error. A thorough review of both parties’ financial conditions reveals that Paula’s net monthly pay totaled $2,321 and that her expenses, including the entire house note and other debts assigned to her, totaled $3,369.19. As such, Paula lacked approximately $1,048.19 per month in income to meet her expenses. The chancellor determined Paula would lack approximately $188.59 per month to meet her necessary monthly expenses. Glen’s net monthly income was $3,659, and his combined total expenses were $4,712.60, including his payment of one-half of the mortgage note. He lacked $1,053.60 per month to pay for his monthly expenses. Both parties lacked sufficient funds to meet their monthly expenses. The chancellor went on to acknowledge that Glen’s extramarital affair weighed heavily against him with regard to the marital fault of the parties. As such, it is evident the chancellor appropriately reviewed the applicable factors in granting Paula periodic alimony, and there is no error in the chancellor’s alimony award. Issue 3: Tax exemptions Glen argues that the chancery court improperly divided the state and federal income tax dependent exemptions for the children and the parties’ state and federal tax refunds. The equal division of both the income tax dependent exemptions and the tax refunds reflects the chancellor’s attempt to divide the benefits fairly between the parties, and there was no abuse of discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
