Case Name: Janis Theresia HOGGATT, Appellant, v. William Lance HOGGATT, Appellee
Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2000-05-09
Citations: 766 So. 2d 9
Docket Number: No. 1998-CA-01319-COA
Parties: Janis Theresia HOGGATT, Appellant, v. William Lance HOGGATT, Appellee.
Judges: McMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES, LEE, MOORE, AND THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 766
Pages: 9–16

Head Matter:
Janis Theresia HOGGATT, Appellant, v. William Lance HOGGATT, Appellee.
No. 1998-CA-01319-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
May 9, 2000.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 5, 2000.
Gary L. Roberts, Attorney for Appellant.
Arthur D. Carlisle, Ocean Springs, Attorney for Appellee.

Opinion:
SOUTHWICK, P.J.,
for the Court:
¶ 1. Theresia and Lance Hoggatt agreed to a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. Mrs. Hoggatt appeals the chancellor's decision to award rehabilitative alimony instead of periodic alimony, and also complains that she should have received attorney's fees. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
¶ 2. Janis Theresia Hoggatt and William Lance Hoggatt were married on August 9, 1980, and divorced on grounds of irreconcilable differences on August 7, 1998. Mr. Hoggatt, a minister, received his master's and doctoral degrees in Texas. Both he and Mrs. Hoggatt graduated from the University of Southern Mississippi. The couple adopted two children, ages seven and ten at the time of this suit. Mrs. Hoggatt elected to stay home to raise the children. For the last few years of the marriage, the family lived in church parsonages. Reverend Hoggatt's income was the family's sole support. After the divorce, Mrs. Hoggatt and the two children moved in with her parents.
DISCUSSION
I. Periodic Rehabilitative Alimony
¶ 3. Alimony awards are largely discretionary. A chancellor's decision regarding the amount and type of alimony will be upheld on appeal unless the decision is found to be manifestly in error either in fact or law, or otherwise an abuse of the discretion. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Miss.1993).
¶ 4. There are three different categories of alimony — periodic, rehabilitative, and lump sum. Hubbard v. Hubbard, 656 So.2d 124, 129-30 (Miss.1995). Each serves a somewhat different purpose. Rehabilitative period alimony is "an equitable mechanism which allows a party needing assistance to become self-supporting without becoming destitute in the interim." Id. It is subject to modification and has a time limit set by the court. Id. Periodic alimony does not have a termination date and continues until the death of either spouse, the remarriage of the recipient, or further order of the court based on a change in circumstances. Id. Lump sum alimony does not concern us in this ease. Mrs. Hoggatt argues that the rehabilitative alimony that she is to receive will not adequately provide for her needs.
¶ 5. The chancellor considered the following factors that apply to making alimony determinations:
1. The income and expenses of the parties;
2. The health and earning capacities of the parties;
3. The needs of each party;
4. The obligations and assets of each party;
5. The length of the marriage;
6. The presence or absence of minor children in the home, which may require that one or both of the parties either pay, or personally provide, child care;
7. The age of the parties;
8. The standard of living of the parties, both during the marriage and at the time of the support determination;
9. The tax consequences of the spousal support order;
10. Fault or misconduct;
11. Wasteful dissipation of assets by either party; or
12. Any other factor deemed by the court to be "just and equitable" in connection with the setting of spousal support.
Armstrong, 618 So.2d at 1280.
¶ 6. The chancellor made a detailed decision that mentioned the following considerations. At the time of her divorce, Mrs. Hoggatt held a bachelor's degree from the University of Southern Mississippi. Her prior employment had been as a police officer, a position to which she did not wish to return. Instead, she desires to com-píete work at Mississippi College to become a teacher, a process which she estimated would take 30 months. The award of rehabilitative periodic alimony extends six months beyond the period of time Mrs. Hoggatt plans to be in school.
¶ 7. The Reverend Hoggatt had received about $41,000 per year as a civilian pastor and would now receive $37,000 in his new assignment as a military chaplain. His former wife's attorney calls this change of careers a whim. Though this was an irreconcilable difference divorce, which leaves issues of fault largely unaddressed in the proceedings, the evidence indicates that Mrs. Hoggatt's reluctance to stay with her husband as he embarked on a military career was the final factor leading to divorce proceedings. It would be a matter of additional evidence and some debate before any conclusion could be reached as to which party better fits the image of abandoning this marriage.
¶ 8. The chancellor decided that Mrs. Hoggatt, after completing the time period that she testified would be required, could reenter the workforce with reasonable prospects for providing for herself. Neither party will be making a large income, but both could be seen based on this evidence as capable of reaching a comfortable lifestyle. No complaint is made here regarding the child support that was ordered, and therefore those additional payments are an obligation until the two children become adults. Chaplain Hoggatt also was to maintain life insurance with his children as beneficiaries, to keep the children covered by his own health insurance, and to pay all emergency medical expenditures that arose during the course of the divorce proceedings.
¶ 9. Not only the amount, but the category of alimony is initially the chancellor's decision. Parsons v. Parsons, 678 So.2d 701, 703 (Miss.1996). It is important that this decision be subject only to an abuse of discretion review. The chancellor must analyze an overall combination of the listed factors, likely not highlighting a single category such as length of marriage, prior standard of living, or ability to pay. We find that the chancellor was within the margin of discretion when he concluded that the two spouses' education will enable them to maintain equivalent standards of living once the rehabilitation period is passed. The award of $450 in rehabilitative periodic alimony for thirty-six months was not an abuse of discretion.
II. Attorneys'Fees
¶ 10. If a party is financially able to pay his or her own attorney in a domestic case, then it is inappropriate to require the other party to make the payment instead. Benson v. Benson, 608 So.2d 709, 712 (Miss.1992). This too is discretionary with the chancellor and will be upheld unless we find that the discretion was abused. Armstrong, 618 So.2d at 1282.
¶ 11. The chancellor determined that each party would be responsible to pay that party's own attorney. Neither former spouse had much money on hand. Chaplain Hoggatt had $1,625 in checking accounts, Mrs. Hoggatt only $580, most of the latter perhaps being a then-recent alimony payment. Doubtless, Mrs. Hoggatt could have difficulty paying her attorney's fees, but it is also clear that Chaplain Hoggatt had little disposable income, given the alimony and child support that he was paying. Taking the parties as he found them, with neither having meaningful excess funds with which to pay fees, the chancellor left them to pay their own attorneys. That was reasonable.
¶ 12. We may not always agree that a chancellor decided the issues in a manner that we would have. However, our limitation as an appellate court is to determine whether the decisions were within the range of discretion permitted by the evidence and the applicable law. We find that they were.
¶ 13. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES, LEE, MOORE, AND THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
PAYNE, J, DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY KING, P. J.
IRVING, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT WRITTEN OPINION.
. Her attorney states on appeal that though she was in reasonably good health, she had been shot during the course of her duties. The implication is that there were some continuing health problems from her injuries. According to Mrs. Hoggatt's testimony, however, she was not shot but another officer with her had been. Perhaps her appellate counsel understood the record differently than we do and honestly made the statement that appears in the brief. I trust that is so.