Opinion ID: 1151624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the lump sum award of $30,000 was grossly inadequate and constituted an abuse of discretion.

Text: This Court has stated that following its decision in Jenkins v. Jenkins, 278 So.2d 446 (Miss. 1973), [o]ne or both of two common threads thereafter appear in all of our awards of lump sum alimony. First, the wife had through her efforts been a material economic benefit in the creation of her husband's wealth, such as by quitting her job to help him in his business or profession, or by helping him through college; or second, had been of benefit in being a dutiful, faithful housewife. Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d 580, 591 (Miss. 1990). Thereafter, in Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435, 438 (Miss. 1988), the following factors from this Court's previous decisions regarding lump-sum alimony were combined and considered: 1) Substantial contribution to accumulation of total wealth of the payor either by quitting a job to become a housewife, or by assisting in the spouse's business. Tutor v. Tutor, 494 So.2d 362 (Miss. 1986); Schilling v. Schilling, 452 So.2d 834 (Miss. 1984); 2) A long marriage. Jenkins v. Jenkins, 278 So.2d 446 (Miss. 1973); Tutor and Schilling, supra; 3) Where recipient spouse has no separate income or the separate estate is meager by comparison. Jenkins, Tutor and Schilling, supra; 4) Without the lump sum award the receiving spouse would lack any financial security. Abshire v. Abshire, 459 So.2d 802, 804 (Miss. 1984). Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d at 592, citing Cheatham at 438. Nancy testified that she worked prior to the birth of her son and that it was at Gene's insistence that she did not continue working or did not take another job after the family moved to Tupelo. Nancy became a full-time homemaker. Being a homemaker is pursuing a legitimate profession which makes a substantial contribution to a marriage. In addition to her duties as homemaker, Nancy was also actively involved in a number of worthwhile community projects. She also testified to seasonally decorating the restaurant. The Boxes' marriage of thirty years would certainly be classified as a long marriage. It is not disputed that Gene's adulterous affair was the cause of the dissolution of the marriage. There is no indication that Nancy was not a dutiful, faithful wife. As previously discussed, Nancy had no separate income other than from the part-time job at Penney's and has no separate estate. Gene's estate is by comparison considerable. Even with this lump-sum award, Nancy's financial future seems uncertain. Although she has health insurance, she anticipates considerable future medical expenses and also household and automotive repairs which could quickly wipe out this award. She also has a $10,000 debt for legal fees not fully covered by the court awarded attorney's fees. Considering the proof under the established criteria, it seems abundantly clear that Nancy Box meets the four factors set out above to be entitled to lump-sum alimony. The only question is the amount of the award. In Reeves v. Reeves, 410 So.2d 1300, 1302 (Miss. 1982) this Court said that it would not have considered a lump sum award of $100,000.00 or ten percent (10%) of the husband's net estate unreasonable or unfair under the undisputed facts in this case. We are not suggesting a ceiling or the actual amount the chancellor should award, but we do intend to signal some sense of proportion in cases of this nature. Unfortunately, there is no magic formula which can be applied to each case. An award of 25 percent or more could be justified in this case. The chancellor should carefully study the current financial state of the husband and make a fair and equitable determination. The award of $30,000 is clearly unreasonable and unfair. Under the outdated financial statement, Gene's net worth was placed at over $600,000. With the acquisition of the additional restaurants and other properties, his worth has probably increased. While Mississippi is not a community property state, we recognize the serious responsibility of a chancellor to make intelligent and fair provision for the wife. 410 So.2d at 1303. To say that this was not done is an understatement. In actuality, it shocks the conscience of this Court that the chancellor seemed to ignore the many factors in the record and we hold that he is manifestly wrong in such a low award of lump sum alimony. We reverse and remand the lump sum award to the chancellor for an increase in the award.