Opinion ID: 1146873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the chancery court have authority to award attorney's fees to the wife and to the contrary should the court have awarded attorney's fees to the husband.

Text: This Court has consistently held that the matter of determining attorney's fees in a divorce action is largely entrusted to the discretion of the chancellor. Walters v. Walters, 383 So.2d 827 (Miss. 1980), Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310 (Miss. 1986). The court heard evidence regarding the extensive litigation instigated by appellant and appellant's reluctance to cooperate in settling the matters. After receiving this evidence the court stated: Although the expenses of litigation etc. have been extremely heavy on both sides that the equities would require at least a small payment by Dr. McNeill for attorney's fees and I would set that at $500. It is the function of the chancellor to weigh all of the facts and assess the circumstances and to award attorney's fees accordingly. Hartley v. Hartley, 317 So.2d 394 (Miss. 1975). Appellant failed to show any abuse of discretion by the chancellor in awarding attorney's fees. Therefore, this award will not be disturbed. In addition to briefs filed in this case the appellee submitted to this Court a motion for award of attorney's fees and court costs, seeking an additional sum of $250 for representation in this appeal. In response to the motion for attorney's fees, appellant requested that the Court reverse the award of attorney's fees and not allow any attorney's fees to appellee. Under the holding in Rogers v. Rogers, 373 So.2d 816 (Miss. 1979), the Court allowed attorney's fees to appellee because of continuing litigation by the appellant apparently calculated to harass appellee and deplete her income. In considering the merit of the allegations before us and the history of litigation and resistance alluded to in the record, this appeal appears more closely akin to harassment than a quest for justice. While the issue of harassment has not been placed squarely before this Court, we find from a thorough review of the circumstances, sufficient reason to grant appellee's motion for attorney's fees for representation in this appeal and hereby award the sum of $500.00. AFFIRMED. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.