Segree v. Segree
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00330-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00330-COA ; 2011-CA-00330-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-26-2012 Opinion Author: Fair, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Equitable distribution - Child support - Alimony Judge(s) Concurring: Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Russell, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Lee, C.J., and Irving, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-07-2011 Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court Judge: Vicki Barnes Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED AND WIFE AWARDED PERMANENT PERIODIC ALIMONY, EXCLUSIVE USE OF MARITAL HOME, AND CHILD SUPPORT Case Number: 2007-289GN |
|
| Consolidated: 2009-CA-00757-COA In The Matter of The Dissolution of Marriage: Frank A. Segree, III v. Susan B. Segree; Warren Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2007-289-GN; Ruling Date: 11/24/2008; Ruling Judge: Vicki Barnes; Majority Opinion: Fair, J. | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In The Matter of The Dissolution of The Marriage of Susan B. Segree and Frank A. Segree, III: Frank A. Segree, III |
R. LOUIS FIELD
WREN CARROLL WAY |
||
| Appellee: | Susan B. Segree | MARK W. PREWITT |
|
|
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 - Equitable distribution - Child support - Alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Frank and Susan Segree were divorced in 2008. Frank appealed and the Court of Appeals remanded the case for specific findings of fact. The chancellor addressed each factor under Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994), and Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278,1280 (Miss. 1993). Frank appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable distribution Frank argues that the chancellor erred in distributing the marital property, because it is unfair and inequitable. In her analysis, the chancellor awarded Susan assets totaling $172,421 and debts totaling $47,946. Susan’s award included: the marital home, her checking account, her savings account, the tractor, the lawn mower, the household furnishings, the Chevy Malibu, her 401K, and $26,943 from Frank’s Thrift Savings Plan. Frank was awarded assets totaling $126,989.91 and debts totaling $77,018.26. His award included: three vehicles, a travel trailer, a boat, his checking account, his savings account, a portable generator, the remainder of his Thrift Savings Plan, and credit for $7,165.91 of dissipated assets. In making an equitable division of the martial property, the chancellor is not required to divide the property equally. Here, the parties stipulated to the valuation of their property. The chancellor properly applied Hemsley to determine the marital or separate nature of the property and then provided a detailed Ferguson analysis to distribute that property. The chancellor’s division of marital assets is supported by substantial evidence. Issue 2: Child support Frank argues that it was an abuse of discretion to award support for one of the couple’s daughters when she was the same age, education level, and employment level as her sister, who was considered emancipated. The chancellor’s decision was within her discretion, as previously adjudicated. This issue is res judicata. Issue 3: Alimony Frank argues that the chancellor erred in awarding permanent alimony to Susan because the division of marital assets left Susan in a substantially better position than Frank, thereby rendering alimony unnecessary. In the property division, Frank was awarded $126,989.91 in assets, and Susan was awarded $172,421.00. Though Susan received more, these numbers are misleading. More than eighty percent of Susan’s award is non-liquid equity. Susan’s adjusted gross income was determined to be $2,480.62 per month. Her monthly expenses, including all insurance, retirement contributions, and installment payments, totaled $3,228.78. This figure includes a $328.50 car payment for the Chevy Malibu. Without alimony, Susan has a monthly deficit of $793.16. Frank’s AGI was determined to be $5,899 per month. His expenses, including all installment payments and voluntary retirement contributions, total $4,713.57 each month. This figure includes a voluntary payment of $1,030.57 to Frank’s Thrift Savings Plan. Assuming that he has complied with the judgment of the chancellor, Frank is no longer responsible for child-support payments, the house note, insurance for his daughters, or his daughters’ credit card bills. Without paying any alimony, Frank has a monthly surplus of $1,185.43. Susan was awarded approximately $26,943 in liquid assets from Frank’s Thrift Savings account. This award would last for less than three years if she is forced to use it to cover her monthly deficit. In that same three years, Frank would place $37,100.52 into his Thrift Savings Plan. It cannot be said that such a division of assets adequately provides for Susan. The chancellor’s award of $500 a month in alimony does not cover her deficit but will certainly help, and Frank will still be left with a monthly surplus of $685.43. Without receiving alimony, Susan will suffer a disparity in income and a decline in her standard of living following the equitable division of martial assets. Thus, the chancellor’s decision was well within her discretionary power. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
