John David Foreman v. Kristy Lynn Foreman
223 So. 3d 178
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John and Kristy Foreman married in 1996, had one child; Kristy was primarily a homemaker while John worked abroad and had an extramarital affair in China.
- Parties separated circa October 2012; Kristy obtained a separate-maintenance order awarding her custody and $3,500/month for mortgage and household bills.
- Chancellor granted divorce to Kristy for uncondoned adultery and awarded Kristy physical custody, exclusive use of the marital home, household goods, a 2007 Ford Expedition, $700/month child support, $3,300/month periodic alimony (continued from the separate-maintenance amount), $40,000 of John’s retirement, and $3,500 attorney’s fees.
- John appealed, challenging (1) classification and division of marital property (including retirement account and home/timeshare treatment), (2) the alimony award and the chancellor’s failure to apply Armstrong factors and consider John's changed income, and (3) whether child support complied with statutory guidelines and whether the chancellor made an express finding of John’s income.
- Appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion on factual findings and de novo on legal questions; concluded some findings/supporting analysis were missing and remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Foreman (Appellant) Argument | Kristy (Appellee) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification of assets before division | Chancellor failed to classify assets as marital vs. nonmarital and thus erred in distribution | Assets were marital; parties did not dispute marital status at trial | Reversed and remanded: record lacks clear classification—remand for explicit classification |
| Application of Ferguson factors in property division | Chancellor did not apply or make Ferguson findings; division (home, timeshare, retirement) unsupported | Ferguson factors unnecessary because assets were marital; some property awarded by exclusive use rather than transfer | Reversed and remanded: chancellor must apply Ferguson factors and issue findings of fact/conclusions of law |
| Periodic alimony ($3,300/mo) | Award improper: chancellor did not identify type/duration, failed to apply Armstrong factors, and did not account for John's demotion/reduced income and other obligations | Payment continued prior separate-maintenance support; reflects income disparity and maintenance of pre-separation lifestyle | Reversed and remanded as to alimony: treated as periodic alimony; chancellor must identify type, apply Armstrong factors, and consider John's current income and obligations |
| Child support ($700/mo + $4,500/yr activities) | Child support amount may be excessive; chancellor failed to make express finding of payor’s income and thus did not show compliance with statutory guidelines | Guidelines are advisory; chancellor likely considered health insurance and activity expenses; Kristy’s guideline calc exceeds award | Affirmed that support is warranted but reversed/remanded for an express finding of John's current income and consideration of all child-support components |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (establishes factors for equitable division of marital property)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (sets factors for awarding spousal support)
- Ewing v. Ewing, 203 So. 3d 707 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review and procedure for property division and alimony review)
- Lee v. Lee, 78 So. 3d 326 (Miss. 2012) (chancellor must make sufficient Ferguson findings; failure is manifest error)
- Seghini v. Seghini, 42 So. 3d 635 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (vacating alimony when chancellor failed to make detailed Armstrong findings)
- Dickerson v. Dickerson, 34 So. 3d 637 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (requirement that chancellors support property divisions with findings)