Opinion ID: 1698227
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the lower court erred in awarding marie decuir daigle a lien against one-half (1/2) of eddie daigle, jr.'s pension, profit sharing and/or retirement plan and prohibiting him from depleting the funds.

Text: Eddie contends that it was error for the chancellor to place a lien against one-half of his profit-sharing, pension and/or his retirement plan, prohibiting him from depleting the funds. Shannon contends that it was a sagacious decision to prevent Eddie from depleting the funds. In Thompson, this Court stated that the chancery court was not without authority to impose liens to insure payment in cases where equity demands it. Id. at 623. In Dunn v. Dunn, 609 So.2d 1277 (Miss. 1992), this Court found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the chancellor imposing an equitable lien against the husband's interest in the homestead as it was necessary to protect the wife and insure payment of the money owed, and that the chancellor did have the authority to do so. Although there was no proof that Eddie had wasted any of his retirement funds, given some of the financial ventures with which he was involved, the chancellor did not abuse her discretion in imposing a lien against such funds to insure that the separate maintenance award was met. This assignment of error is without merit.