Haney v. Haney
| Docket Number: | 1999-CA-02078-COA Linked Case(s): 1999-CT-02078-SCT ; 1999-CT-02078-SCT ; 1999-CA-02078-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-25-2003 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Additional testimony on remand - Lump sum alimony - Attorney’s fees Judge(s) Concurring: Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Irving and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): McMillin, C.J., and Lee, J. Dissenting Author : Myers, J. Dissent Joined By : King, P.J., and Thomas, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-15-1999 Appealed from: Union County Chancery Court Judge: John C. Ross, Jr. Disposition: REVISED OPINION GRANTING LUMP SUM ALIMONY AND ATTORNEY'S FEES Case Number: 97-0276 |
|
| Consolidated: 2002-CA-00244-COA Bob Haney v. Pat (Robertson) Haney; Union Chancery Court; LC Case #: 97-0276; Ruling Date: 12/05/2001; Ruling Judge: John c. Ross, Jr. | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Bob Haney |
TIMOTHY E. ERVIN
MERRIDA COXWELL |
||
| Appellee: | Pat (Robertson) Haney | ROBERT M. CARTER |
|
|
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 - Additional testimony on remand - Lump sum alimony - Attorney’s fees |
| Summary of the Facts: | Following the dissolution of the marriage of Bob and Pat Haney, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case because the chancellor failed to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the award of lump sum alimony to Pat and for the chancellor to determine if Pat was eligible to receive an award of attorney's fees. On remand, the chancellor ordered Bob to pay lump sum alimony in the sum of $104,974.77, and ordered Bob to pay Pat’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,696.39. Bob appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Additional testimony On remand, Bob’s counsel requested an opportunity to present testimony and argument which the chancellor refused. Bob argues that the chancellor erred by declining to hear additional testimony. The chancellor should allow whatever amendments are necessary that he may consider the action as the parties are situated on the date of the remand hearing. To hold otherwise would not be equitable. Because the values of the non-marital assets from which the lump sum alimony award was to be made were ever changing, based on current market valuations and the lengthy intervening time period, it was vital that the chancellor consider evidence of any substantial change in value or any disposition of assets to arrive at a just, fair and proper decision. Because the proper procedure on remand was for the chancellor to allow testimony regarding the parties' changed circumstances, the case is reversed and remanded. Issue 2: Lump sum alimony In the original case, the Court reversed and remanded for the chancellor to provide specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of lump sum alimony based on the Cheatham factors. On remand, the chancellor issued a revised opinion and final judgment. However, the chancellor again failed to illustrate, analyze or explain how each Cheatham factor affected his consideration and supported the award of lump sum alimony. Therefore, the case must be reversed and remanded for an appropriate decision with the necessary analysis. Issue 3: Attorney’s fees Bob argues that no evidence was presented to establish that Pat was unable to pay her own attorney's fees. Where a party is financially able to pay her attorney, an award of attorney’s fees is not appropriate. It was readily apparent from her non-marital assets and the award of lump sum alimony that Pat had sufficient financial ability to pay her attorney’s fees. Therefore, the award of attorney’s fees is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
