Opinion ID: 1107716
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the chancellor erred in awarding rhonda lump-sum alimony in the amount of $250,000.

Text: ¶ 7. James asserts that the chancellor failed to apply the Cheatham factors with regard to lump sum alimony. Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435, 438 (Miss.1988). James opines that Haney v. Haney, 788 So.2d 862 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) ( Haney I ) [5] and Miller v. Miller, 874 So.2d 469 (Miss.App.2004) now make it mandatory for a chancellor to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the Cheatham factors when awarding lump sum alimony. James argues that had the chancellor applied such factors, lump sum alimony never would have been awarded. James likewise argues that the Court of Appeals failed to reverse the trial court for failure to apply the Cheatham factors, but instead listed the Cheatham factors and stated All of these factors have been met. Yelverton v. Yelverton, 961 So.2d at 52-53, 2006 Miss.App. LEXIS at , ¶ 16. ¶ 8. History reveals that this Court and the Court of Appeals have considered, at least in part, the guidelines delineated in Cheatham, Haney II, and Miller. In Cheatham, this Court outlined the four factors to consider: 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, 449 (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). A closer analysis of these cases, however, reveal[s] that the single most important factor undoubtedly is the disparity of the separate estates. Cheatham, 537 So.2d at 438. Haney III clarified the Cheatham factors and stated, the Cheatham factors are really nothing more than an earlier version of the Ferguson factors. Haney III, 907 So.2d at 954. In Haney III, we likewise stated that the Cheatham factors were simply an earlier attempt by this Court to provide a chancellor with guidelines for awarding what today is called an equitable distribution of marital assets. . . . we see no Ferguson factor which would be inappropriate in evaluating lump sum alimony Id. at 955. [6] That being said, James's assertion is correct that the chancery court was obligated to apply the appropriate factors necessary to determine whether Rhonda was entitled to lump sum alimony, i.e., the Cheatham-Ferguson factors. ¶ 9. Since we have determined that the Cheatham factors are encompassed within the Ferguson factors, the Ferguson factors should now be set forth and applied in all appropriate situations: 1. Substantial contribution to the accumulation of the property ( see Cheatham factor No. 1). 2. The degree to which each spouse has expended, withdrawn or otherwise disposed of marital assets and any prior distribution of such assets by agreement, decree or otherwise. 3. The market value and the emotional value of the assets subject to distribution. 4. The value of assets not ordinarily, absent equitable factors to the contrary, subject to such distribution, such as [non-marital assets]. 5. Tax and other economic consequences, and contractual or legal consequences to third parties, of the proposed distribution. 6. The extent to which property division may, with equity to both parties, be utilized to eliminate periodic payments and other potential sources of future friction between the parties. 7. The needs of the parties for financial security with due regard to the combination of assets, income and earning capacity ( See Cheatham factors Nos. 3 & 4). 8. Any other factor which in equity should be considered ( See Cheatham factor No. 2). Haney III, 907 So.2d at 954-55. Thus, we turn now to the issue of whether the chancery court appropriately applied these factors in considering the issue of lump-sum alimony. ¶ 10. In its final judgment entered consistent with very thorough findings of fact and conclusions of law, the chancery court awarded lump sum alimony in favor of Rhonda in the amount of $250,000. In doing so, the chancellor went to great lengths to explain James's misconduct. By way of example, [t]he Court finds that [James] Yelverton, during the course of the divorce, dissipated the assets of the parties, continued to accumulate debts, refused to pay debts that were due and sold the property of the parties in violation of the Court's Orders and directives. However, the trial court never set out or applied the Cheatham factors or the Ferguson factors. On appeal, the Court of Appeals outlined the Cheatham factors, but with little discussion. Yelverton v. Yelverton, 961 So.2d 52-53, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 613, ¶ 16. ¶ 11. Therefore, since the chancellor in today's case failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the Ferguson factors, we are constrained to reverse the chancellor on this issue and remand this case to the trial court to revisit this issue. See Lauro, 847 So.2d at 847; Johnson v. Johnson, 823 So.2d 1156, 1161 (Miss.2002); Sandlin v. Sandlin, 699 So.2d 1198, 1204 (Miss.1997). Upon remand, the chancellor should properly apply the Ferguson factors to his findings of fact.