Opinion ID: 1152344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the chancellor erred in failing to require larry to pay all of the court costs.

Text: Nancy contends she was (1) entitled to divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, (2)(3) attorney's fees, (4) court costs. To the first contention, we apply the established principle that, on a finding of fact, this court will not reverse the chancellor unless it is determined that he was manifestly wrong in that finding. Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435, 442 (Miss. 1988); Wood v. Wood, 495 So.2d 503, 505 (Miss. 1986). The chancellor granted the divorce on the ground of adultery. The proof was overwhelming on that ground, i.e., Nancy and her paramour both testified in open court sustaining the ground. With regard to attorney's fees and court costs, the lower court found that both parties were equally vested with the property, except for the 101 acres, wherein he determined that Nancy had a lesser interest. Their respective incomes and ability to gain income were practically the same. Nancy did not attempt to demonstrate her inability to pay attorney's fees. If a party is financially able to pay her attorney, an award of attorney's fees is not appropriate. Cheatham, 537 So.2d at 440; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 519 So.2d 891, 895 (Miss. 1988); Cameron v. Cameron, 276 So.2d 449 (Miss. 1973); Nichols v. Nichols, 254 So.2d 726 (Miss. 1971). The determination of attorney's fees in divorce cases is largely a matter which is entrusted to the sound discretion of the chancellor, particularly where the equities are as evenly divided as here. Likewise, that rule applies to court costs. Holleman v. Holleman, 527 So.2d 90 (Miss. 1988); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310 (Miss. 1986); Dillon v. Dillon, 498 So.2d 328, 331 (Miss. 1986); Ladner v. Ladner, 436 So.2d 1366, 1375 (Miss. 1983). The above assigned errors are rejected.