Opinion ID: 1100316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Cheatham Factors

Text: ¶ 25. In Haney I, the Court of Appeals rejected the chancellor's evaluation using the Ferguson factors and remanded for an evaluation using the Cheatham factors. However, the Cheatham factors are really nothing more than an earlier version of the Ferguson factors, and both are used for the same purpose. A side-by-side comparison is helpful. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. Ferguson Factors No. Cheatham Factors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Substantial contribution to the accumulation 1 Substantial contribution to the accumulation of the property. of total wealth of the [paying spouse] either by quitting a job to become a housewife, or by assisting in the paying spouse's business. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 The degree to which each spouse has expended, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of marital assets and any prior distribution of such assets by agreement, decree or otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 The market value and the emotional value of the assets subject to distribution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 The value of assets not ordinarily, absent equitable factors to the contrary, subject to such distribution, such as [non-marital assets]. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Tax and other economic consequences, and contractual or legal consequences to third parties, of the proposed distribution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 The extent to which property division may, with equity to both parties, be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of future friction between the parties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 The needs of the parties for financial 3 Where recipient spouse has no separate security with due regard to the combination income or the separate estate is meager of assets income and earning by comparison. capacity. 4 Without the lump sum award the receiving spouse would lack any financial security. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Any other factor which in equity should 2 A long marriage. be considered. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¶ 26. Clearly, the Cheatham factors were simply an earlier attempt by this Court to provide a chancellor with guidelines for awarding what today is called an equitable distribution of marital assets, under appropriate circumstances. Indeed, we see no Ferguson factor which would be inappropriate in evaluating lump sum alimony. Although we continue to refer to certain payments as lump sum alimony, these payments are really no more than equitable distribution in the form of lump sum cash, rather than an equitable portion of certain property which cannot be divided equitably. ¶ 27. In determining a spouse's contribution which justifies equitable distribution, we look not only at cash contributions and assistance in the spouse's workplace or business, but also to domestic work in the home such as caring for children, cooking meals, cleaning house, and washing and ironing clothes. The persistent attempts made to put a monetary value on a homemaker's contributions are likely to undervalue the magnitude of such contributions. Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 926 n. 2. The spouse who is accumulating the monetary assets will have more time to accumulate more assets if someone is taking care of all of the domestic responsibilities. ¶ 28. We find no case, however, which authorizes the award of lump sum alimony or an equitable distribution of non-marital assets based upon nothing more than one spouse's need and the other's ability to pay. More justification is needed. That is why the Cheatham factors and the Ferguson factors were provided. ¶ 29. As previously stated, the chancellor found marital assets subject to equitable distribution (and/or lump sum alimony) to be: (1) a 1996 Volvo valued at $14,250; (2) $5,898.45 in a checking account held in Pat's name; (3) $8,848 in a checking account held in Bob's name only; and (4) the $221,250 growth in Bob's separate investments. As far as we can tell from the record, the parties do not contest an equal division of the first three items and, in that respect, we affirm the chancellor. The fourth item, however, is vigorously contested. We shall now apply the Ferguson factors (which will necessarily include all the Cheatham factors), to the facts established in the record, to determine whether remand is necessary for a determination of equitable distribution. Lump sum alimony is unnecessary, since the property at issue is money, which is easily divided.