Opinion ID: 1152344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: nancy was entitled to alimony and child support, which would include use and possession of the parties' home.

Text: Nancy contends (6) that she should have been awarded the right to operate the chicken farm. Without question, Nancy could probably operate the farm as well as Larry. Their experience was about equal. The chancellor gave Larry the right to operate the farm until its disposition under the final terms of the decree. The farm was probably by far the most valuable asset of the parties. As people in the poultry industry know, it is also an asset that quickly depreciates and deteriorates in value. Again, we cannot say that the chancellor was manifestly wrong in his disposition of that asset. See, Jones v. Jones, 532 So.2d 574, 580-581 (Miss. 1988); Dillon, 498 So.2d at 331; Watts v. Watts, 466 So.2d 889, 891 (Miss. 1985). Nancy next contends that the lower court should have granted her alimony and child support, including use and possession of the parties' home. The chicken farm is in close proximity to the home. The parties operated the farm themselves and the dwelling house was the base of those operations. Where the owners themselves do not physically operate the farm but do so by a tenant, the industry is aware that the common procedure is for the owner to build a tenant house and his operator/producer lives there and looks after the poultry. The house was a necessary part of the operation of the chicken farm and as such was properly awarded to Larry. With respect to the issue of alimony, Nancy received one-half of the proceeds from the operation of the farm and was provided with substantial income for her and the children. Further, aside from the 101 acre tract of land, the chancellor divided the property equally. The chancellor was not manifestly in error on this issue. McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987); Martin v. Martin, 271 So.2d 391 (Miss. 1972). The chancellor ordered that the parties' pretrial arrangement on child support be continued temporarily pending disposition of the home and chicken houses. Therefore, this cause must be remanded for the purpose of fixing permanent child support. The assigned error seven has merit and will be affirmed in part and remanded in part for the purpose of fixing and awarding permanent child support.