Opinion ID: 1822440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Henry Wesley Boykin contends that the chancellor's award of alimony was grossly excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. This Court rejects Henry's contention, affirms the judgment in part, and remands in part for purposes of clarification.
Henry and Betty Boykin were married on February 14, 1975. Almost thirteen years later, on December 5, 1987, Betty filed for divorce. No children were born of the marriage. A lengthy hearing was held, after which the chancellor granted the divorce on the undisputed grounds of adultery and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Pursuant to the divorce decree, Betty was awarded: (1) monthly alimony of $700.00 until July, 2001, at which time the sum will be reduced to $550.00; (2) the home, furnishings, and 1986 Mercury automobile; (3) a lien on one-third of Henry's gross federal civil service retirement benefits; and (4) attorney's fees in the sum of $4,000.00. In addition, Betty was held responsible for: (1) payment of a $25,000.00 home mortgage; (2) a monthly car payment of $315.00; and (3) maintenance of the home's interior. Henry was awarded all personal property that was in his immediate possession  including a 1987 pick-up truck, a restored '55 chevrolet, a runabout pleasure boat, a fourteen-foot fishing boat, a camper trailer, a 1976 bulldozer, a television, a videocassette recorder, and tools. In addition to his responsibilities delineated in the preceding paragraph, Henry must maintain the home exterior. Henry appealed the terms of the divorce decree, and presents numerous issues for disposition.
The issues presented by Henry have been paraphrased or consolidated for purposes of brevity and avoidance of undue repetition: (1) Whether the amount and duration of the award of periodic alimony are excessive? (2) Whether the award of the home and furnishings is excessive? (3) Whether requiring Henry to maintain the home's exterior constitutes an abuse of discretion? (4) Whether the award of a lien on one-third of Henry's retirement funds is vague, misleading, and without basis? (5) Whether the award of $4,000.00 in attorney's fees is excessive? Henry presented one other issue which is deemed moot. Henry asked: Whether requiring him to maintain the home's interior constitutes an abuse of discretion? The final decree requires Betty  not Henry  to maintain the interior; Henry must only maintain the exterior.