Houston v. Houston
121 So. 3d 283
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kellye and Brock Houston married in 1987, had three children, and separated after Brock admitted an extramarital one-night stand; Kellye obtained a divorce based on Brock’s uncondoned adultery.
- The chancellor awarded Brock physical custody of the two minor children, ordered Kellye to pay $600/month child support, divided marital assets (Kellye receiving IRAs, half of certain sale proceeds, personal property, and no marital debt), and denied Kellye periodic or rehabilitative alimony.
- Kellye’s parents (the Meeks) consistently provided substantial financial support during the marriage, made large gifts, and established trusts (including a Generation-Skipping Trust) benefiting Kellye and the children.
- Disputes on appeal: whether the chancellor erred by (1) denying alimony to Kellye, (2) ordering Kellye to pay child support, and (3) declining to order Brock to pay the children’s college expenses; Kellye also challenged the valuation/consideration of her trust interests.
- The chancery court found Kellye had significant separate resources (trust interests and parental support), had dissipated assets, and both parties were at fault for the marriage breakdown; the appellate court affirmed the chancellor on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kellye) | Defendant's Argument (Brock) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alimony should have been awarded | Kellye argued the Armstrong factors (income/expenses, health, needs, marriage length, etc.) favored periodic alimony; she claimed inadequate liquid assets and low earning capacity given health and limited work history | Brock and chancellor pointed to Kellye's large separate estate (trusts and parental support), continued parental gifts, her dissipation of funds, and shared fault; chancellor exercised discretion to deny alimony | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion. Chancellor reasonably weighed Armstrong factors and found Kellye’s trusts/parental support and asset division made alimony unnecessary. |
| Whether Kellye’s trust interests were improperly valued/considered | Kellye argued the GST interest might never pay out and therefore should not be (or should be conservatively) counted as separate estate supporting denial of alimony | Chancellor relied on evidence of large trust corpus, income, historical parental gifts, and testimony about trustee’s duties to beneficiaries; treated trust interest as part of Kellye’s separate resources | Affirmed: chancellor acted within discretion to consider/value Kellye’s trust interests given record and precedent (no precise valuation required). |
| Whether child support award ($600/month from Kellye) was erroneous | Kellye contended her adjusted income was much lower and she had a massive monthly deficit; disputed the chancellor’s finding of $3,000/month parental support | Brock relied on evidence of consistent parental gifts/trust support and statutory definition of adjusted gross income including reasonably available sources | Affirmed: chancellor reasonably found $3,000/month available and applied statutory guideline (20% for two children); child support award upheld. |
| Whether chancellor should have ordered Brock to pay children’s college expenses | Kellye argued parents/trusts shouldn’t excuse Brock’s obligation to fund college | Brock testified he would pay if the Meeks would not allow trust access; trusts were established to fund education and were available | Affirmed: chancellor properly declined to order Brock to pay because trusts exist to fund education and Brock stated willingness to pay if trusts were unavailable; issue raised post-judgment and discretionary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogillio v. Rogillio, 101 So.3d 150 (Miss. 2012) (appellate deference to chancellor on alimony and factual findings)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (factors to weigh when awarding alimony)
- Dogan v. Dogan, 98 So.3d 1115 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (chancellor may value trusts when parties provide no precise valuation)
- Faerber v. Faerber, 13 So.3d 853 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (alimony purpose and timing after equitable distribution)
- Holley v. Holley, 892 So.2d 183 (Miss. 2004) (alimony principles)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 554 So.2d 300 (Miss. 1989) (gifts from third parties ordinarily not considered when awarding separate maintenance, subject to factual context)
- Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623 (Miss. 2002) (length of marriage and income disparity relevant to alimony calculation)
- McKissack v. McKissack, 45 So.3d 716 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (award of periodic alimony where equitable distribution insufficient to maintain wife’s standard of living)
- Graham v. Graham, 767 So.2d 277 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (alimony is not an indefinite bounty)
- Beacham v. Beacham, 383 So.2d 146 (Miss. 1980) (alimony principles)