Opinion ID: 1855459
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the chancellor erred in awarding the marital home to Beverly and whether the award of alimony was excessive?

Text: ¶ 18. On cross-appeal Larry offers two assignments of error which we combine into one. Larry argues that the chancellor's awarding Beverly the marital residence and $35,000 lump sum alimony as well ordering Larry to pay part of Beverly's debts totaling $40,233 was error. Larry contends that since the chancellor found that the marital residence was purchased by Larry Franks prior to the marriage, he made all payments on the residence and it was finally paid in full approximately one year after the parties married, the residence should have been classified as non-marital property. Therefore, Larry should have been awarded the residence. The chancellor found that [d]ue to the differences in the separate estates of both parties, the Court hereby awards Beverly Maxey Franks... the marital residence.... ¶ 19. Larry also argues that the chancellor's award of lump sum alimony as well as ordering him to pay part of Beverly's outstanding debts in the amount of $40,233 was error. Larry argues that ordering him to pay Beverly's debts can only be classified as lump sum alimony, which, added to the other lump sum alimony of $35,000 equals a total alimony award of $75,233. Larry argues that this amount is excessive. ¶ 20. This Court has stated that while alimony and equitable distribution should be considered together, they are distinct concepts, and when one expands the other must recede. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 929 (Miss.1994). As the chancellor properly declined to award an equitable distribution of Larry's investment income, it made the following awards to Beverly: the marital home, $35,000 lump sum alimony and Larry to pay Beverly's $40,233 outstanding debt. After review in light of our decisions in Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss.1993), and Tilley v. Tilley, 610 So.2d 348 (Miss. 1992), we find that the awards, in both form and amount, are appropriate. ¶ 21. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Lee County Chancery Court in all respects. ¶ 22. AFFIRMED. PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, SMITH, WALLER AND COBB, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.