Baker v. Baker
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01747-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CA-01747-COA ; 2002-CA-01747-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-30-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Retirement benefits - Periodic alimony Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Dissenting Author : Southwick, P.J., would grant. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-23-2002 Appealed from: Rankin County Chancery Court Judge: Thomas L. Zebert Disposition: GRANTED DIVORCE, AWARDED LUMP SUM ALIMONY, AND DIVIDED THE MARITAL ESTATE Case Number: 44,057 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Clarice Woolbright Baker |
MICHAEL J. MALOUF
MELISSA ANN MALOUF |
||
| Appellee: | Norman Kenneth Baker | JOHN W. CHAPMAN |
|
|
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 - Retirement benefits - Periodic alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Clarice Baker and Norman Baker were granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The court awarded Clarice part of the marital estate but denied periodic alimony. Clarice appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for the chancellor to either treat Norman's IBM retirement benefit as a marital asset subject to a revised equitable distribution or to leave the retirement account with Norman but award periodic alimony to Clarice. On remand, the court awarded Clarice periodic alimony. Clarice appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Retirement benefits Clarice argues that the chancellor should have divided Norman's IBM retirement benefits on a fifty-fifty basis rather than allowing her only thirty percent. The chancellor chose the specific amount of periodic alimony based on the monthly retirement benefit, because the retirement benefit figures were based on money Norman paid into the account from his personal salary and Clarice will receive a retirement income from PERS, none of which was distributed to Norman. Because it was within the chancellor's discretion to make a division of the retirement benefit or to award periodic alimony, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in awarding Clarice periodic alimony. Clarice also argues that the chancellor erred in discounting the monthly retirement benefits by twenty-eight percent for taxes. However, the chancellor used only the monthly retirement amounts in determining an appropriate amount of periodic alimony. Clarice also argues that the chancellor erred in reducing her share of the IBM retirement benefits by the value of her retirement account. However, the chancellor stated that he took into account Clarice's retirement account in order to determine an appropriate amount of periodic alimony. Issue 2: Periodic alimony Clarice argues that the amount granted to her as periodic alimony was erroneous due to the discrepancy in the incomes of Norman and Clarice. Clarice received half of the marital assets, including a payment of $25,704.62 by Norman to make the distribution equal. Given this as well as Clarice's present employment and her retirement, the amount of periodic alimony was not so oppressive, unjust, or grossly inadequate as to evidence an abuse of discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
