I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 1 4 6 4 - CO A J EF F RE Y KEE F E S EA LE , S R. AP P EL LA NT
v. CH ERI E NANEZ S EALE APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 31/ 2013 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. L AW RE NC E P RI M E AUX CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : M AR T Y C RA I G R OB E RT S ON A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL EE: RO BE RT D . J O N ES NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - DOMES T I C R E L AT I ONS T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: GR ANT E D DI VOR CE , DI VI DE D M AR I T AL P RO P E RT Y, AND AWARDE D AL I M ONY TO TH E APPELLE E D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 18/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E L E E , C . J. , R O B E R T S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. CAR LTON, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . Je ffre y S e a le S r. a p p e a ls the jud g m en t of th e L au d erd ale C o u n ty C h an ce ry C o u rt
a w a rd in g a lim o n y to C h e rie S e a le a n d d istrib u tin g th e c o u p le’ s m a rital p ro p e rty . O n a p p e a l, J ef f r ey r ai s es t he f

ol l ow i ng i s s ues : (1) w hetherthe cha ncel l orerr ed i n hi s cl as s i f i cat i on of
cert ai n debt s ; ( 2) w hetherthe cha ncel l or e rr ed i n hi s di s tr i but i on of the coupl e’ s m ar i t al pr oper t y; a nd ( 3) w he the rthe c ha nc e l l ore rr e d b y a w a r di ng pe rmane nta l i mony t o Che r i e. Up o n r e v i e w, we f

i n d n o a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n b y th e c h a n c e l l o ra n d th e r e f o r e a f f i rm. FACTS

### Fer guson v . Fergus on , 639 So. 2d 921, 928- 29 (Mi ss . 1994)
. 1 

### Arms trong v. Arms trong , 618 So. 2d 1278, 1280 ( Mis s. 1993). 2 

### 2 ¶2. A f

t er s event een year s of m arr i age, J ef f r ey and C her i e obt ai ned a fi nal j ud gm entof di vor ce. T he part i es had tw o chi l dr en dur i ng the cour s e of thei rm arr i age, both of w hom
w er e mi nor s atthe t i m e of the di vor ce. A tthe s t artof the part i es ’ m arr i age, J ef f r ey w orked
as a st ockbr oker , and C her i e w orked as an off i ce admi ni s tr at orfora sec ur i t i es fi rm . J ef f r ey l at eratt ended a nd gr a du a t e d f r om m e di cal s chool , compl et ed a r es i dency pr ogr am, and bega n
w o rk in g a s a p h y sic ian in M e rid ian , M iss iss ip p i. A lth o u g h C h e rie c o n tin u e d to w o rk w h ile J ef f r ey att ended medi cals chool , s he opt ed t o s t ay athom e and r ai s e the coupl e’ s chi l dr en af t erthe f ami l y m oved t o M er i di an. ¶3. I n t he pr ocee di ngs bel ow , t he chanc el l orgra nt ed C her i e a divorce o n t he gr ound of adul t ery and aw ar ded hercust ody of the part i es ’ chi l dr en. A f t erconduct i ng an ana l ys i s of the Fer gus on f act or s , the chanc el l ordi vi ded the coupl e’ s m ar i t al pr operty as f ol l ow s : ( 1) 1 C her i e r ece i ved $77, 107 i n m ar i t al as s et s and $38, 334 i n m ar i t al debt ; and ( 2) J ef f r ey re c e iv e d $ 3 1 ,5 1 3 in m a ri ta l a s s e ts a n d $ 2 9 2 ,1 2 7 .1 2 in m a ri ta l d e b t. ¶4. B as ed on the part i es ’ r es pect i ve i ncomes and the amount of thei r debt i n compar i s on
w ith the ir t o tal a ss e ts, th e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t th e d iv isio n o f th e m a rital e sta te le ft C h e rie
w i th a “de f

i ni t e def i ci t . ” T he cha ncel l orther ef or e conduc t ed an a nal ys i s of the A r m s tr ong 2 fa c to rs to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a n a w a rd o f a lim o n y w a s a p p ro p ria te. H e c o n c lu d e d th a t C h e rie “s houl d have r ehabi l i t at i ve per i odi c al i m ony dur i ng a tr ans i t i on per i od .
. . and .
. . perm anent

### 3

per i odi c al i m ony i n a nomi nal amount . ” B as ed on hi s fi nd i ng s, t he cha ncel l oror der ed J ef f r ey t o pay C her i e $1, 500 i n “r ehabi l i t at i ve per i odi c al i m ony” f orforty- ei ghtm onths
. T he
c h a n c e llo r a lso o rd e re d Je ffre y to p a y C h e rie $ 1 0 0 in n o m in a l p e rm a n e n t alim o n y u n til C her i e’ s r emar r i age orei therparty’ s death. A ggr i eved by the chance l l or ’ s rul i ngs on the iss u e s o f d istrib u tio n o f th e m a rital p ro p e rty a n d p e rm a n e n t alim o n y , Je ffre y a p p e a ls to th is C o u rt. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 5 . “ T h is C o u r t’ s s ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w in d o m e s tic [- ]re la tio n s m a tte rs is e x tr e m e ly lim ite d .” P hi l l i ps v. P hi l l i

ps , 45 So. 3d 684, 692 ( ¶23) (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2010). O n appeal , w e “w i l l not d istu rb a c h an ce ll o r’s aw ard of ali m o n y an d division o f m arit al asse ts un less the [ch an ce ll o r]
w a s m a n if

e s tly w ro n g , a b u s e d [h is ] d is c re tio n [,] o r a p p lie d a n e r r o n e o u s le g a l s ta n d a rd .” W at s on v. W at s on , 882 So. 2d 95, 98 ( ¶14) ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Sa n d lin v . Sa n d lin , 699 So. 2 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). F u rth erm o re, th o u g h w e o n ly interfere w ith a c h an ce ll o r’s f i ndi ngs of

f actw her e the cha ncel l orappl i ed an e rr oneous l egal s t andard orhi s f actual fi n d ing s w ere m an if

estl y w ron g o r clearly e rron eo u s, w e re v iew d e n o v o th e c h an ce ll o r’s in te rp re ta tio n a n d a p p lic a tio n o f t h e la w . Si ng l e y v . Si ngl ey , 8 46 S o. 2d 1004, 1006 ( ¶5) (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). DI S CU S S I ON I. W h ether the ch an cel l or erred in h i s cl assi fi cati on of certai n d eb ts . ¶6. I n hi s f

i r s t as s i gnm ent of err or , J ef f r ey chal l enges the chancel l or’ s cl as s i f i cat i on of
cert ai n debt s as ei therm ar i t al ornonm ar i t al
. J ef fr ey as s ert s thatthe cha ncel l orerr ed by

### 4

cl as s i f yi ng a debtow ed t o T ony N anez , C her i e’ s f ather , as m ar i t al s i nce Cher i e us ed the
m oney t o pay f

orheratt orney’s fees
. J ef f r ey al s o appea r s t o ar gue thatthe cha ncel l or i m pr oper l y cl as s i f

i ed the unpai d port i on of J ef f r ey’ s m edi cal
- s chool debtas nonm ar i t al pr operty. a. T he D ebt O w ed t o C heri e’ s F at her ¶7. O urcas el aw hol ds thatde bt s a cqui r ed dur i ng the cour s e of the mar r i age a r e s ubj ect to e q u ita b le d is tr ib u tio n . McL a u rin v . M cL a u rin , 8 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 5 -8 6 (¶ 2 4 ) (M iss . C t. A pp. 2003)
. “The court s i n thi s s t at e have cons i st ent l y hel d thatexpens es i ncurr ed f orthe f ami l y, ordue t o the ac t i ons of a f ami l y m ember , ar e mar i t al debtand shou l d be tr eat ed as
s uch upon di s s ol ut i on of the mar r i age. ” Shof

f nerv. Shof

f ner , 909 So. 2d 1245, 1251 (¶ 17) (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶ 8 . T h e re c o rd re fle c ts th a t, d u e to Je ffre y ’s a d u ltery , C h e rie in c u rre d th e d e b t a t iss u e to pay f orl e ga l r e pr e s e nt a t i on du r i ng he rdi vo r c e pr oc e e di ng s . Bec a us e Cher i e i nc urr e d the d e b td u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e p a r t i e s ’ ma rr i a g e a n d a s a d i r e c tr e s u l to f J e f f r e y ’ s a c t i o n s , we fin d n o e rro r in th e c h a n c e llo r’s c las sific a tio n o f th e d e b t as m a rital. A s a re su lt, th is
a rg u m e n t lac k s m e rit.

b. The U npai d Por t i on o f Je f f r e y’ s M e di c al - Sc hoo l D e bt ¶9 . O n a p p e a l, Je ffre y a p p e ars to a rgu e tha t th e c h an ce ll o r erron eo u sly c lassifi e d h is
m e d ica l-sc h o o l d e b t as n o n m arit al be ca u se th e c h an ce ll o r assign ed Je ffre y so le r e sp o n sib ili ty f orthe r epaymentof

the deb t . I n hi s br i ef

, J ef f r ey ar gues that“the l oans f orhi s educa t i on s houl d notsol el y be ass i gned t o hi m as the f unds m os tcert ai nl y w er e comm i ngl ed w i th other

### 5

i ncome t o pay f

orl i vi ng and mar i t al / f

ami l y expens e[ s ]
. ” D espi t e J ef f r ey’ s as s ert i ons , the
r ecor d f ai l s t o i ndi cat e t hat the cha ncel l orcl as s i f i ed J ef f r ey’ s m edi cal
- s chool debtas
n o n m a rital. ¶10. A l though the chanc el l ora s s i gned J ef f r ey f ul l r es pons i bi l i ty f

or the r emai nder of

the
m e d ica l-sc h o o l lo a n s, th is fa c t alo n e f a ils to e sta b lish th a t th e c h a n c e llo r e rro n e o u sly cl as s i f i ed the debtas nonm ar i t al
. T he cha ncel l orcl ear l y acknow l edged i n hi s opi ni on that J ef f r ey acqui r ed the debtdur i ng the cour s e of the part i es ’ m arr i age. T he cha ncel l orf ur ther
no t ed thatthe p roceeds of the l oan s, along w i th C heri e’s incom e an d otherrevenu e sources, pai d f orthe part i es ’ l i vi ng expens es w hi l e J ef f rey at t ended medi cal s chool
. B as ed on the fa c ts in th e re c o rd , w e fin d n o su p p o rt fo r Je ffre y ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e c h a n c e llo r e rro n e o u sly
c las sifie d h is m e d ica l-sc h o o l d e b t a s n o n m a rital. A s a re su lt, th is a rg u m e n t als o lac k s m e rit. II. W h e th e r th e c h a n ce ll o r e rr ed in h is distrib u ti o n o f the co u p le’s m ari t al propert y. ¶1 1. J ef

f r ey ne xta r gu e s tha tthe c ha nc e l l ori ne qu i t a bl y di s tr i bu t ed the part i es ’ m ar i t al property. Jef

fr ey co ntends that the ch ancell or com m i t t ed cl ear err or by assi gn i ng him m ost
o f t h e m a ri ta l d e b t a n d a w a rd in g h im a lm o s t n o n e o f t h e m a ri ta l a s s e ts . ¶ 1 2 . O u r c a se law p ro v id e s th a t “ a n e q u ita b le d iv is io n o f p ro p e rty d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily
m ean a n equal di vi s i on of pr operty. ” C ham blee v . C ham bl ee , 6 37 S o. 2 d 85 0, 8 63 -64 (M i ss. 1994)
. “O urt as k i s t o re vi ew the cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ngs on the Fer

gus on f act or s
— w e do not conducta Fer

gus on anal ys i s anew . ” C ar t erv. C ar t er , 9 8 S o . 3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 2 (¶ 9 ) (M iss . C t. A pp. 2012) ( ci t at i on and i nternal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. A s pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed, the

### 6

“ c h a n c e llo r’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s w ill n o t b e d istu rb e d u n le s s m a n ife stly w ro n g , cle a rly
err oneous , orthe chanc el l orappl i ed an i m pr operl egal s t andar d. ” I d. ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). ¶13. I n C ar t er , thi s C ourts t at ed:

A s l on g as Fer

gus on i s pr oper l y appl i ed, equ i t able di vis i on s m ay inde ed b e lop sid e d
. A n d “w h e n the fac ts a n d circ u m sta n c e s w a rra n t an e q u ita b le di vi s i on of

the mari t al es t at e of

one- hal f

orgr eat erand s uch a di vi s i on compl i es w i th the Fer

gus on pr i nci pl es , then w e are duty bound t o l ets uch a di s tr i but i on s t and. ” P hi l l i ps v. P hi l l i

ps , 90 4 S o. 2d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 3 (¶13) ( M i ss. 2004)
. T hi s [ C ] ourtpe r f orm ed thatduty i n Seym ourv. Seym our , 960 So. 2d 513, 519 ( ¶¶13- 15) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2006)
. I n thatcas e, w e af f i rm ed the chanc el l or ’ s aw ar d of

ni nety- s even pe r centof the mar i t al pr operty, i ncl udi ng t he mar i t a l ho me, t o the w i f e a nd or de rtha tthe hu s ba nd pa y the ou t s t a nd i ng debton the mar i t al hom e, becaus e the f act s and ci r cumst ance s
— i ncl udi ng the hus band’ s m uch l argeri nco m e and separat e asset s— supp ort ed such a divi s i on. I d. C ar t er , 9 8 S o . 3 d at 11 1 3 (¶1 2 ). ¶1 4 . In the p rese n t ca se, w e fi n d that the rec o rd c o n tain s su b stan ti al e v iden ce to su p p o rt th e c h a n c e llo r’s fin d in g s o f fa c t an d d istrib u tio n o f th e m a rital e sta te. T h e c h a n c e llo r w ro te i n hi s opi ni on that“the ans w ert o the part i es ’ f i nanci al s ecur i ty do es no tl i e i n the di vi s i on of the mar i t al es t at e, due t o i t s l ack of l i qui di ty and s i ze. M or eover , t he val ue of the mar i t al
e sta te is a lm o st e q u a l to th e m a rital d e b t, c o m p o u n d in g the d iffic u lty o f ef fe c tin g an e q u itab le di vi s i on. ” ¶15. In ana l yzing the Fer gus on f a c t or s , the c ha nc e l l orf ou nd tha tc l e a ra nd s ubs t ant i al p ro o f e x iste d th a t Je ffre y ’s a c tio n s d e sta b ili z e d h is m a rria g e a n d d a m a g e d h is re latio n sh ip
w i th h i s chi l dren. A l tho ug h Jeff rey served as the p ri m ary w ag e ea rne r du ri ng the p art i es’

### 7

m arr i age, the cha ncel l orf ou nd C her i e’ s i ndi r ectcontr i but i ons t o the ac qui s i t i on of m ar i t al
as s et s t o be as val uabl e as J ef f r ey’ s di r ectcontr i but i ons . I n a ddi t i on, w hi l e J ef f r ey’ s m edi cal d eg ree im p rov ed h is ow n ea rnin g ca p ac ity , th e c h an ce ll o r no ted th at th e p u rsuit of Jeffrey ’s
car eernegat i vel y i m pact ed C her i e’ s earni ng capa ci ty s i nce s he l ef ta more l ucr at i ve pos i t i on f orl ow er - payi ng empl oym entw hen the coupl e moved. ¶16. C oncl udi ng hi s anal ys i s of the Fer gus on f act or s , the cha ncel l ors t at ed: T he di s par i ty i n i ncome betw een the part i es i s s tr i ki ng an d m us tbe t aken i nt o acc ount . C her i e earns ar ound $1, 500 a mont h w hen s he w orks every avai l abl e day. J ef f r ey earns thatm uch i n a s i ngl e s hi f tof emer gency room d uty. H i s m on thly i nco m e is m ore than ten t i m es great er than C heri e’s
. As a r e s u l t , J e f

f r e y i s i n a b e tt e rp o s i t i o n [ th a n Ch e r i e ] t o b e a b l e t o p a y d o wn d e b t a n d a c c u m u la te w e a lth
. . . . T he mostval uabl e s i ngl e m ar i t al a s s eti s the equi ty i n the f orm erm ar i t al re sid e n c e . A n y d iv isio n o f th a t e q u ity b e tw e e n th e p a rties w ill re q u ire th a t it b e so ld, bec au se n eith er p arty h as the cash t o bu y ou t the o ther’s i n terest. In h is te stim o n y , Je ffre y sta ted tha t he w a n ted h is c h ild re n to c o n tin u e to liv e in th e re s id e n c e . . . . T h e c o u rt h a s ta k e n in to a c c o u n t Je ffre y ’s w ish in th is r egar d. ¶ 1 7 . T h e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t C h e rie sh o u ld re c e iv e a g re a ter sh a re o f th e m a rital e sta te
s i nce “ the as s et s s he i s r ece i vi ng ar e notl i qui d i n any r eal s ens e. ” The chanc el l ornot ed that the equi ty i n the f

orm erm ar i t al hom e w as “l ocked i nt o the pr operty s o l ong as [ C her i e] us es it as sh e lter f

o r th e m in o r c h ild re n a n d h e rse lf[. ]” T h e ch a n c e llo r als o n o ted th a t, i f C h e rie l at ers ol d the home, s he w oul d need the f unds t o pr ovi de a r epl ace m ents hel t erf orher s el f and the chi l dr en. B as ed on hi s appl i cat i on of the Fer gus on f act or s , the chanc el l ordi s tr i but ed the p a rties ’ m a rital e sta te in the fo llo w in g m a n n e r: (1 ) C h e rie re c e iv e d $ 7 7 ,1 0 7 in m a rital a ss e ts and $38, 334 i n m ar i t al debt ; an d (2) J ef f r ey r ece i ved $31, 513 i n m ar i t al as s et s and

### 8

$ 2 9 2 ,1 2 7 .1 2 in m a rital d e b t. ¶18. A f

t erre vi ew i ng t he r ecor d and appli cabl e cas el aw , w e f i nd no m ani f

es terr ori n the
c h a n c e llo r’ s d is tr ib u tio n o f t h e m a ri ta l e s ta te . See W at s on , 882 So. 2d at98 ( ¶14)
. T he chanc el l orbas ed hi s di s tr i but i on of the mar i t al pr operty on a prope rappl i cat i on of the Fergus on fact ors, and the record con t ai ns subst anti al evidence to supp orthis fi nd i ng s. A c c o rd in g ly , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r la c k s m e rit. III. W h eth er th e c h a n ce ll o r er re d b y aw a rd ing p er m a n en t ali m o n y to C heri e. ¶19. J ef

f r ey al s o ar gues that the chanc el l or err ed by aw ar di ng C her i e perm anental i m ony. “A l i m ony aw ar ds ar e w i thi n the di s cr et i on of the chanc el l or , a nd hi s di s cr et i on w i l l notbe
r ever sed on appeal unl es s the cha ncel l orw as m ani f es t l y i n err ori n hi s f

i ndi ng of f actand abu sed hi s di s cr et i on. ” A r m s tr ong v. A r m s tr ong , 6 18 So
. 2 d 12 78 , 1 28 0 ( M i s s . 1993) ( ci t at i ons om i tt ed)
. “A l i m ony s houl d onl y be consi der ed i f the pr operty di vi s i on l eave s one s pous e i n a def

i ci t . ” Jones v. Jones , 2011- C A
- 01440- C O A , 2013 W L 1800051, at*8 ( ¶35) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. A pr . 30, 2013) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed)
. “ I f ther e ar e s uf

f i ci entas s et s t o pr ovi de f orboth part i es , then ther e i s no m or e t o be done. ” I d. (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶20. I n Jones , thi s C ou rtfoun d m anif esterr or i n t he chan cel l or’ s aw ar d of nom i nal perm anental i m ony beca us e the chanc el l orappl i ed the A r m s tr ongf act or s “af

t er acknow l edgi ng he had made s uf f i ci entpr ovi s i on f

or[ the w i f

e] thr ough the equi t abl e di vi s i on of the pr operty so thatperm anental i m ony w as notneede d. ” I d. In re v ersing the c h an ce ll o r’s
aw ar d of al i m ony, thi s C ourts t at ed:

### 9 B y re f err i ng t o t he aw ar d as “nomi nal ” al i m ony, i tdoes notappea rthat the chanc el l orw as tryi ng t o a ddr es s a n a ctual de f i ci ti n the pr operty aw ar d. R a th e r, h e a d m its h e w a s s im p ly lea v in g th e d o o r o p e n in c a se fu tu re e v e n ts pr ove [ t he w i f

e] has a nee d and [ the hus band] has an abi l i ty t o pay. Such a c o n t i n g e n c y p l a n , wh i l e we l l
- me a n i n g , s i mp l y i s n o ts u p p o r t e d b y o u rl a w. A l i m on y i s t o be cons i der ed as a r emedy t o an ac tual i ns uf f i ci ency i n the m ar i t al as s et s , notas a c ont i ngency f ora pos s i bl e i ns uf

f i ci ency i n the f

utur e. B ecaus e the chanc el l orfound the di vi s i on of m ar i t al pr operty l ef

tno need f

or ali m o n y , w e find itw as e rror for th e c h an ce ll o r t o n o n ethe less aw ard “nomi nal ” al i m ony. I d. at (¶3 6 ). ¶21. O n appeal , J ef

fr ey argu es that the ch ancell or erroneou sl y b ased t he aw ar d of perm anental i m ony on C her i e’ s pos s i bl e f utur e needs a nd hi s pos s i bl e f utur e i ncome. T he
rec o rd re fl ec ts, h o w ev er, th at th e c h an ce ll o r fou n d the d ivisi o n o f Jeffrey an d C h erie’s
m ar i t al es t at e l ef

tC her i e w i th a “def

i ni t e def i ci t ” and f

ai l ed t o pr ovi de herw i th any l as t i ng f i nanci al s ecur i ty. T he cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ng thatC heri e st i l l s uf f er ed a de f

i ci taf t erthe
e q u i t a b l e d i s tr i b u t i o n o f th e c o u p l e ’ s ma r i t a l e s t a t e d i s t i n g u i s h e d th i s c a s e f r o m Jones and p ro v id e d th e e v id e n tia ry b a s is re q u ir e d b y p re c e d e n t to c o n s id e r a n a w a rd o f a lim o n y . See i d. at( ¶35)
. T he cha ncel l orther efor e p roceeded w i th an ana l ys i s and appl i cat i on of the A r m s tr ongfa c to rs . ¶22. I n det erm i ni ng al i m ony t o be pr oper , the cha ncel l ors t at ed: W i th s ever al year s of

f i nanci al s upport , w hi ch w i l l af f or d hera tr ans i t i on p e rio d b e tw e e n th is m a rria g e a n d a m o re fin a n c ially fru itfu l life , [C h e rie ] w ill hopef ul l y be i n a pos i t i on t o achi eve a f i nanci al re covery. T hi s cons i der at i on

. . . w e ig h [s] in f

a v o r o f a p e rio d o f re h a b ili tativ e a lim o n y [, w h ich ] .
. . . is i nt ended t o pr eventthe r eci pi entf r om bei ng des t i tut e. O n th e o th e r h a n d , itse e m s in e q u itab le to allo w Je ffre y th e p o ss ib ili ty to re b u ildh is life fin a n c ially a n d e n jo y th e a c c u m u latio n o f w e a lth th a t C h e rie

### We a cknowl edgethat t he c hanc el lor

us ed thet er

m “nominal am ount”in ref er ring 3 

### to t he award of perm anent alimony. The use of theterm “nominal”coul d be mis le ading sincetheterm

coul d im ply t hat theal im ony wasnot war

rante d. However, we a cknowl edge in th is case the ch ancello r’s fin din g that an evid entiaryb asis ex isted to establishth at Ch erie suf fere d a de fi cit f

oll owing the di stributi on of the m aritales tate . 10 w oul d have pa r t i ci pat ed i n butf orthe br eakup of

the mar r i age. I n hi s pr es ent fin a n c ial s tat e , a t lea st a c c o rd in g to th e p ictu re h e p re se n ted to th e c o u rt, i t w o u ld s e e m u n lik e ly th a t h e c o u ld d o so . Y e t, i f h e h a s n o t b e e n e n tirely f or thcomi ng abouthi s f i nance s , he coul d r ebound qui ckl y. I n the l at t er ci r cumst ance , i tw oul d be i nequi t abl e f orCher i e t o be pr ecl uded f r om enj oyi ng herf orm ers t andar d of

l i vi ng. Thi s c ons i der at i on w ei ghs i n f avorof perm anent p e rio d ic a lim o n y , sin c e th e p u rp o se o f p e rm a n e n t p e rio d ic a lim o n y is to pr es erve the mar i t al s t andar d of l i vi ng f ol l ow i ng a l engthy m arr i age. T h e c o u rt fin d s th a t, i n o rd e r to e ff e c t a fin a n c ial re m e d y fo r th is s i tuat i on, C her i e s houl d have r ehabi l i t at i ve per i odi c al i m ony dur i ng a tr ans i t i on per i od .
. . and .
. . shou l d have pe rm anentper i odi c al i m ony i n a n o m in a l a m o u n t. ¶23. A s acknow l e dg e d, the c ha nc e l l orde t e rmi ne d a f t e requi t abl e di s tr i but i on of the m ar i t al estate tha t C h erie su ffered a d eficit
. A s furthe r reco g n ized , o u r prec ed en t all o w s the aw ard
o f a lim o n y u p o n th e fi n d in g o f s u c h a d e fi c it. See J ones , 20 1 3 W L 18 0 0 0 5 1 , at * 8 (¶ 3 5 ). A f t erf i ndi ng thata def

i ci texi s t ed, the cha ncel l oraw ar ded C her i e tr ans i t i onal r ehabi l i t at i ve al i m ony f

orf orty- ei ghtm onths and $100 i n perm anental i m ony t her eaf t er . W e r evi ew the 3
a m o u n t o f a n a lim o n y a w a rd b y a c h a n c e llo r f o r m a n if e s t e rr o r. See Arm s tr ong , 618 So. 2d at1280. I n s o doi ng, w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the pr es entcas e s i nce the evi dence i n t he r e c or d s up po r t s the c ha nc e l l or ’ s de t e rmi na t i on r e ga r di ng the a mounta nd typ e of
a lim o n y a w a rd e d to C h e ri e . See i d. ¶2 4. I n accor dance w i t h our ca s el aw , t he chanc el l orcon s i de r e d a l i mony o nl y af t er

### 11

d e te rm in in g th a t th e d iv is io n o f p ro p e rt y le ftC h e ri e w ith a d e fi c it. See J ones , 2 0 1 3 WL 1800051, at*8 ( ¶35)
. T he cha ncel l orthen appl i ed the A r m s tr ongfa ct or s t o t he pr es entcas e. U nl i ke i n Jones , the r ecor d r ef l ect s thatthe chanc el l ora w ar ded C her i e r ehabi l i t at i ve al i m ony f ora tr ans i t i onal per i od and then aw ar ded herperm anental i m ony i n a nomi nal amount“as
a r emedy t o an ac tual i ns uf f i ci ency i n the m ar i t al a s s et s , ” r atherthan “a s a cont i ngency f or a pos s i bl e i ns uf

f i ci ency i n the f

utur e. ” I d. at( ¶36)
. A s a r es ul t , w e f i nd thi s ar gum entl acks
m e rit. ¶ 2 5 . THE J UDGM EN T OF THE LA UDE RDAL E C OUNT Y CHANCE RY COURT I S AF F I R ME D . A L L C OS T S O F T HI S A P P E A L A R E A S S E S S E D T O T HE A P P E L L A N T . LE E, C. J . , I RV I NG AN D G RI FFI S, P. J J . , BA RN ES, I SHE E, RO BE R TS, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.