Opinion ID: 1584367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The trial court erred in requiring the Appellant to pay attorney's fees for Appellee's attorney in this action.

Text: The chancellor awarded Shirley Crowe attorney's fees in the amount of $1,425.00. The legal rules applicable to such awards in divorce actions are as follows: [T]he determination of attorney's fees is largely within the sound discretion of the chancellor. Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704 (Miss. 1990); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310 (Miss. 1986); Kergosien v. Kergosien, 471 So.2d 1206 (Miss. 1985). We are reluctant to disturb a chancellor's discretionary determination whether or not to award attorney fees and of the amount of [any] award. Geiger v. Geiger, 530 So.2d 185, 187 (Miss. 1988). We follow the general rule that where a party is financially able to pay her attorney, an award of attorney's fees is not appropriate. Martin v. Martin, supra, 566 So.2d at 704; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 519 So.2d 891 (Miss. 1988); Harrell v. Harrell, 231 So.2d 793 (Miss. 1970). In Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435 (Miss. 1988), we held that the chancellor abused his discretion in awarding attorney's fees where there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish the wife's inability to pay. Smith v. Smith, 614 So.2d 394, 398 (Miss. 1993). In the present case Jack Crowe asserts that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the chancellor's conclusion that Shirley was unable to pay her attorney. However, the chancellor did have testimony and exhibits tending to show Shirley's monthly income ($525) and expenses ($1100.00), as well as her cash on hand. Under these circumstances he did not abuse his discretion in awarding fees.