Opinion ID: 1743864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the lower court erred in making roger pay part of jo ann's attorneys fees as well as the expert fees.

Text: ¶ 40. The chancellor ordered Roger to pay $10,000 of the $15,000 Jo Ann owed in attorney's fees. The chancellor also ordered that Roger pay $3,000 in expert fees. The chancellor then went on to order that the court costs be divided 50/50 between the parties. ¶ 41. It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to award costs and attorney fees without a showing that one party is unable to pay the fees in question. Hankins v. Hankins, 729 So.2d 1283, 1286 (Miss.1999). Here, the chancellor did not make any findings that Jo Ann was unable to pay her attorney fees or the expert fees. Because the chancellor made no findings as required by this Court, we reverse the chancellor's order requiring Roger to pay $10,000 in attorney fees incurred by Jo Ann as well as the $3,000 expert fees. We reverse and remand this issue for consideration by the court upon remand. V. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN EXCLUDING PARTNERSHIP LIABILITIES ON NOTES SIGNED BOTH BY THE PARTNERSHIP AND ROGER IN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND ROGER'S LIABILITIES. VI. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN THE WAY IT HANDLED ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVING THE HOUSE THE PARTIES LIVED IN DURING THEIR MARRIAGE. VIII. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REQUIRING THE ATTORNEY FOR ROGER TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS FOR JO ANN. IX. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RELYING UPON ITS OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND MATTERS NOT IN THE RECORD IN ITS RULING. X. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT'S TREATMENT OF ROGER EVIDENCES BIAS AND PREJUDICE. XI. WHETHER THE AWARD MADE BY THE LOWER COURT IS EQUITABLE AND JUST GIVEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING ROGER'S FINANCIAL CONDITION. XII. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ROGER'S INABILITY TO PAY IN MAKING THE RULING OF DECEMBER 17, 1998, THAT FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM AND WHETHER THE EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION ORDERED WAS PROVED BY THE PLAINTIFF. XIII. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT WAS CONSISTENT IN THE APPLICATION OF ITS CREDITS AND DEBITS TO THE MARITAL ESTATE IN COMING UP WITH THE FINAL FIGURE AWARDED TO JO ANN. ¶ 42. Because we reverse and remand to the trial court on Issues I, II, III, IV, and VII, we will not address the remaining issues.