Huseth v. Huseth, 135 So. 3d 846

Michael Huseth and Tavia Huseth married in 1998 and have one child born April 9, 1999.
They separated in October 2011 after a dispute; Mike left the marital home and pursued a divorce petition, while Tavia sought custody and separate maintenance.
The chancery court awarded Tavia separate maintenance ($3,000/mo), child support ($988/mo), full physical custody to Tavia, and attorney fees ($25,000).
The court imputed Mike’s income to $7,058/mo, based on loans from his parents and compensation from Lakin Enterprises, and offset living expenses into income.
Mike appeals, challenging maintenance, imputed income, child support calculation, custody, and attorney fees; Tavia seeks appellate fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether separate maintenance was properly awarded.	Huseth	Huseth	Reversed and remanded; maintenance improper as income/living expenses not properly analyzed
Whether imputing income and the $3,000/month maintenance was correct.	Huseth argues imputed income overstated.	Huse th contends imputation reflects earning potential and family support	Reversed and remanded for detailed, accurate finding of imputed income and its use in maintenance
Whether child support was computed as gross income rather than adjusted, and whether findings were sufficient.	Huseth argues improper basis and lack of detailed findings.	Huseth contends imputed income supports 14% figure	Reversed and remanded for detailed computation including all relevant facts and taxes
Whether custody/Albright analysis supports sole custody to Tavia or joint custody.	Huseth seeks more custody rights; argues Albright factors insufficiently detailed.	Huseth argues chancellor appropriately weighed factors; Sobieske controls	Affirmed custody award; no reversible error; Albright considerations present
Whether attorney-fee award was proper and whether appellate fees should be awarded.	Huseth challenges $25,000 fee and appellate fees request.	Huseth defends reasonableness and conduct-based sanction rationale	Attorney fee award affirmed; appellate-fee denial affirmed

Lynch v. Lynch, 616 So.2d 294 (Miss. 1993) (separate maintenance requires unequal fault or abandonment unless reconciled)
Robinson v. Robinson, 554 So.2d 300 (Miss. 1989) (fault standard; gratuities to payor may be considered but not to penalize payee)
Gillespie v. Gillespie, 594 So.2d 620 (Miss. 1992) (consideration of all income sources and needs in child-support awards)
Tedford v. Dempsey, 437 So.2d 410 (Miss. 1983) (holistic consideration of income, needs, and health in support)
Sobieske v. Preslar, 755 So.2d 410 (Miss. 2000) (Albright factors need not be enumerated if the record shows fit parents)
Houston v. Houston, 121 So.3d 283 (Miss.Ct.App. 2013) (court allowed parental gifts to augment income in alimony context (discussed by concurrence))
Thompson v. Thompson, 527 So.2d 617 (Miss. 1988) (maintenance should approximate normal support without depleting husband)