Opinion ID: 1652069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the lower court erred in its property division and debt assignments?

Text: ¶ 7. David argues that the chancellor's order of property division and debt assignment is in error because the chancellor failed to consider David's right to lead a normal life with a decent standard of living. See McEachern v. McEachern, 605 So.2d 809, 813 (Miss.1992). ¶ 8. David's adjusted gross income is $2,050 per monthly. From this amount, David was ordered to pay: 1) $450 per month child support; 2) $750, which represents the second mortgage on the marital homestead; and, 3) approximately $50 per month to Columbus Light & Water. Additionally, David was ordered to obtain a life insurance policy on himself of at least $100,000 with the couple's three children as the beneficiaries. David must also provide major medical insurance for the three minor children and is responsible for expenses not covered by the insurance. David argues that the property division and debt assignment leaves him approximately $600 to $700 a month which is insufficient for him to live on, and cites McEachern as his only authority. ¶ 9. Jean has a total monthly income of $1,170, which consists of $720 per month in unemployment benefits and the $450 per month she receives in child support from David. [2] Out of her income, Jean was ordered to pay the first mortgage on the marital residence in the amount of $506 per month, and the consumer accounts owed to McRae's, Gayfer's, Visa, and Sherwin-Williams, which are approximately $210 per month. ¶ 10. A standard of living beyond the father's financial ability to provide cannot be imposed upon him. McEachern, 605 So.2d at 813 (citing Adams v. Adams, 467 So.2d 211, 215 (Miss.1985)). However, in this case, the chancellor found that, although Jean would have been entitled to an award of alimony, the child support and other debt payments rendered David's assets insufficient to support an award of alimony. Although this may impact his living style, the amount is within the guidelines proscribed by Miss.Code Ann. § 43-19-101 (Supp.1998), and the children are the focal concern here. ¶ 11. Jean and the children were awarded the use and possession of the marital home. David's principal point is that the chancellor should have ordered the marital home sold and the proceeds used to satisfy the mortgages on the residence. The chancellor is required to evaluate the division of marital assets by these guidelines and to support his decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law for purposes of appellate review. See Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928 (Miss.1994). A review of the record reveals that the chancellor was not manifestly erroneous in the property divisions and debt assignments and his decision is affirmed as to this issue.