Opinion ID: 1781943
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: inequity of the chancellor's order

Text: The order appealed from the lower court is patently unfair, exhibiting disregard for the meaning of equity. In addition to awarding Linda a 1988 Oldsmobile, periodic alimony of $400.00/month, child support of $300.00/month, and allowing her to keep her existing one-half interest in the marital home debt-free, the chancellor's divorce decree effectively awarded Linda relief of lump sum alimony and assets totaling $70,800.00, plus the market value of Billy's one-half interest in the marital home, while simultaneously leaving Billy with only $319.00 out of his $1537.00 net monthly take-home pay. Effectuating his awards to Linda, the chancellor ordered Billy to do the following: (1) convey his one-half interest in the marital home, its contents, and the surrounding four acres of land to Linda free of the current debt of $18,000.00 encumbering the entire home (monthly note payments of $618.05); [1] (2) transfer to Linda, one-half of his Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) which has a current value of $34,120.90; (3) pay Linda $30,000.00 lump sum alimony, payable in three annual installments of $10,000.00 each; (4) pay Linda's attorney fees of $5,000.00; (5) dispossess himself of one-half of his $800.45 company pension plan in favor of Linda; and (6) pay Linda one-half of the $677.89 remaining in his company savings plan. Billy was also ordered, on a continuing basis, to: (7) pay periodic (monthly) alimony of $400.00 to Linda; (8) maintain health and hospitalization insurance on Linda; and (9) pay child support of $300.00 per month. Billy has limited resources from which he can comply with the chancellor's order. Other than one-half of his ESOP ($17,060.00, available only upon retirement or termination from employment), the one-half interest in his pension plan ($400.20), and the one-half interest in the remaining balance of the Savings and Security Plan ($338.96), the chancellor allowed Billy to keep two tractors, three pick-up trucks, his interest in a cattle business which has not produced any profits for him to date, and his ten percent (10.00%) interest in a mobile home park which has some unknown value. Additionally, Billy was awarded full interest (Billy's and Linda's interest) in thirty-three (33) acres of land adjoining the marital home, which was previously purchased from Billy's parents for $400.00 per acre (13,200.00). After taxes and other deductions, Billy has monthly net take-home pay of $1,637.00 from his job. From that amount, the chancellor's order requires Billy to pay $400.00 alimony to Linda, $300.00 child support, and as mentioned earlier, $618.05 in mortgage or other bank payments if he cannot retire the existing first and second mortgages on the marital home. That scenario leaves Billy with $319.00 per month on which to pay for a place to live, food, transportation, and clothing. Meanwhile, Linda acquires 100% ownership of a debt-free home in which to live, while simultaneously receiving monthly alimony of $400.00 and monthly child support of $300.00, supplementing her employment income of approximately $820.00 per month. Additionally, she will receive the aforementioned annual lump sum cash payments of $10,000.00 (an additional $833.33 per month). The net monthly result of the chancellor's order leaves $319.00 for Billy and $2,353.00 for Linda, on which to maintain a standard of living. Such a lopsided result is inequitable, regardless of which spouse was at fault. As stated in Nichols v. Nichols, 254 So.2d 726 (Miss. 1971): Any test of the justice of such award must include not only the benefit to the wife but the resultant burden to the husband. Once it is determined ... that the amount awarded is of sufficient benefit to the wife, there remains the duty of testing the extent of the correlative burden upon the husband. Nichols, 254 So.2d at 727 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The award of alimony to the payee spouse is to be balanced with the ability of the payor spouse to make payments. In another case, this Court stated that, [t]he chancellor should consider the reasonable needs of the wife and the right of the husband to lead as normal a life as possible with a decent standard of living. Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79, 83 (Miss. 1990) (citing Massey v. Massey, 475 So.2d 802, 803 (Miss. 1985)). The total alimony awarded Linda by the chancellor was beyond Billy's ability to pay, exhibiting disregard of the standard which a chancellor is obligated to follow  an abuse of discretion yielding an inequitable result. II.