Opinion ID: 1626819
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Award of Periodic Alimony to Accomplish Division of Marital Property

Text: ¶ 43. In the Equitable Distribution section of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the chancellor stated the following: As a matter of law the court finds [Cynthia] should be entitled to a portion of [Perrin's] accumulated retirement.... The court determines that [Cynthia] is entitled to forty percent of that accumulation... in an award to [Cynthia] of $901.43 monthly as her portion of that marital asset, which shall be paid as periodic alimony. ¶ 44. More than any other area of family law, alimony is in a state of transition and uncertainty. Bell on Mississippi Family Law at 229. The original purpose was to enforce a husband's duty to support his wife. Id. at § 9.01[1]. It evolved into a gender-neutral award based primarily on income disparity.... Id. at § 9.01[2]. See also Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 279-80, 99 S.Ct. 1102, 1112, 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979). Further, alimony has become a secondary remedy to property division. See Bell on Mississippi Family Law at §§ 9.01[2], 9.01[4][b]. One of the goals of adopting equitable distribution was to alleviate the need for alimony. Id. at § 9.01[5][d]. Our courts draw a distinction, albeit not a sharp one, between property division and alimony. [14] The subject of alimony should not be broached unless and until the property division is complete. See Lauro, 847 So.2d at 848. Then, it should only be done after applying the Armstrong factors, as follows: 1. The income and expenses of the parties; 2. The health and earning capacities of the parties; 3. The needs of each party; 4. The obligations and assets of each party; 5. The length of the marriage; 6. The presence or absence of minor children in the home, which may require that one or both of the parties either pay, or personally provide, child care; 7. The age of the parties; 8. The standard of living of the parties, both during the marriage and at the time of the support determination; 9. The tax consequences of the spousal support order; 10. Fault or misconduct; 11. Wasteful dissipation of assets by either party; or 12. Any other factor deemed by the court to be just and equitable in connection with the setting of spousal support. Armstrong, 618 So.2d at 1280. This Court has stated the following: Alimony is considered only after the marital property has been equitably divided and the chancellor determines one spouse has suffered a deficit. Division of marital assets is now governed under the law as stated in Hemsley and Ferguson. First, the character of the parties' assets, i.e., marital or non-marital, must be determined pursuant to Hemsley. The marital property is then equitably divided, employing the Ferguson factors as guidelines, in light of each parties' non-marital property. Ferguson, 639 So.2d at 928. If there are sufficient marital assets which, when equitably divided and considered with each spouse's non-marital assets, will adequately provide for both parties, no more need be done. If the situation is such that an equitable division of marital property, considered with each party's non-marital assets, leaves a deficit for one party, then alimony based on the value of non-marital assets should be considered. Lauro, 847 So.2d at 848 (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281, 1287 (Miss. 1994)). ¶ 45. It is abundantly clear the award of lump-sum alimony, albeit deemed periodic alimony, was based on an errant division of marital property. We find ample support in the record that the chancellor was eminently correct in determining that wasteful dissipation occurred. Wasteful dissipation is, by definition, to indulge in extravagant pursuit of pleasure. Webster's II New College Dictionary 330 (1995). If the chancellor finds on remand that the wasteful dissipation exceeded one-half of the value of the marital estate, no more need be done as to equitable distribution of marital assets.