Holley v. Holley
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00296-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CT-00296-SCT ; 2002-CA-00296-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-12-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Periodic alimony - Child support Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J., would grant. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-15-2002 Appealed from: Lowndes County Chancery Court Judge: James S. Gore Disposition: JUDGMENT GRANTING DIVORCE TO WIFE. Case Number: 2001-0793 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Danny L. Holley |
MARK G. WILLIAMSON |
||
| Appellee: | Wanda S. Holley | JOHN W. CROWELL |
|
|
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: Adultery - Periodic alimony - Child support |
| Summary of the Facts: | Wanda Holley was granted a divorce from Danny Holley on the ground of adultery. The chancellor ordered Danny to pay $2,000 per month as periodic alimony and $400 per child per month as child support, and divided the marital assets. Danny appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Periodic alimony Danny argues that the court erred in the amount of its award of periodic alimony to Wanda. In determining whether an award of alimony is appropriate, the chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to maintain a normal life with a decent standard of living. A wife is generally entitled to periodic alimony when her income is inadequate to allow her to maintain her standard of living and when her husband is able to pay. Wanda is a partner in an accounting firm with a gross monthly income of approximately $6,112. She received marital assets with a value of $525,523, and a net value of $423,446 while Danny received marital assets with a net value of $382,238. Because this evidence is inconsistent with an award of alimony, the court’s award is reversed and rendered. Issue 2: Child support Danny argues that the court abused its discretion in exceeding the presumptive amount for child support. The statutory guidelines are relevant and may be considered by a chancellor as an aid, but the guidelines may not determine the specific need or the specific support required. Here, the chancellor was not in error in deviating from the child support guidelines based on the facts presented. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
