Glass v. Glass
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01867-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-21-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment & Desertion - Marital indebtedness - Contempt - Insurance Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Bridges, J., joined by Thomas, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-22-2002 Appealed from: Neshoba County Chancery Court Judge: Edward C. Prisock Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED TO APPELLEE. Case Number: 2000-500 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Marie Glass |
STEVEN DETROY SETTLEMIRES |
||
| Appellee: | Florence Edward Glass | RONALD STEPHEN WRIGHT |
|
|
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: Habitual cruel and inhuman treatment & Desertion - Marital indebtedness - Contempt - Insurance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marie Glass filed a complaint for divorce from Edward Glass. Edward filed a counter complaint for divorce. The chancellor granted Marie a divorce on grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment as well as desertion and awarded Marie ownership of the marital home with Edward paying $1,200 per month in alimony to Marie for ten years. Marie subsequently filed a motion for amplification asking that the chancellor address issues he failed to address in his opinion. In a supplemental opinion, the chancellor ordered Edward to quitclaim his interest in the martial home to Marie, ordered Edward to pay $6,000 to Marie representing six months of unpaid alimony, and awarded fifty percent of Edward's retirement account to Marie. Marie filed another motion for amplification asking that the chancellor order Edward to pay the indebtedness on the marital home, to maintain health insurance on her, and to require Edward to pay the marital indebtedness. The chancellor denied the motion, and Marie appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Marital indebtedness Marie argues that the chancellor erred in failing to find the statement she filed more persuasive since Edward failed to file the required financial statement. The evidence concerning marital debt in this case is sparse. Edward failed to provide any information concerning finances, including failing to submit the required financial declaration. On Marie's financial declaration she included a statement of liabilities listing the names of credit card companies, medical service persons and other businesses and listed a current balance for each creditor but failed to submit any accompanying statements or bills. Due to the lack of reliable information concerning the marital debts, the chancellor did not err. Marie also argues that the chancellor failed to address the Ferguson factors concerning division of marital debt. In his opinion the chancellor noted that the key factors included the length of the marriage, the economic contribution to the marriage by the parties, the present earning capacity of the parties, and Marie's present physical disability. The chancellor thus demonstrated that, while he was certainly aware of all of the Ferguson factors, he found these four to be pivotal. Therefore, there is no error. Issue 2: Contempt In an agreed temporary order, both parties consented to Edward's paying Marie $1,000 per month in temporary alimony. Marie argues that the court erred in failing to find Edward in contempt for failing to make those payments. However, the chancellor was within his discretion in ordering Edward to pay $6,000 to Marie, which represented six months of unpaid alimony but refusing to hold Edward in contempt. Marie also argues that she was due attorney's fees for Edward’s failure to pay alimony. Attorney’s fees are not warranted when the court denies a spouse's petition for contempt. Issue 3: Insurance Marie argues that the chancellor erred in not ruling on her request to require Edward to maintain insurance coverage on her. Although the chancellor indicated that he had not been presented with sufficient information on this subject, neither party offered any additional information. Based on the evidence presented to the chancellor, there was no error. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
