285 So.3d 656
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background
- Parties married in 2010, operated a chicken-wing business (Memphis Best Wings) during marriage, separated in 2015; no children of the marriage.
- Divorce by agreement on irreconcilable differences; chancery court tried property division and alimony in March 2018 after numerous discovery disputes and contempt orders.
- Mark proceeded pro se at trial after his attorney withdrew two days before trial; court denied his continuance request and found his testimony not credible.
- Chancellor valued the business at $1,000,000 based solely on Landaria’s estimate, awarded Landaria roughly $521,299 in property distribution, $96,000 lump-sum alimony, and $27,582.58 in attorney’s fees; Mark was held in contempt and briefly jailed for unpaid temporary vehicle allowance.
- Mark moved for reconsideration (including seeking a business valuation expert); the chancellor denied or limited relief; Mark appealed arguing denial of continuance, insufficient business valuation, erroneous contempt/incarceration, and improper alimony/fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance / lack of counsel | Mark: denial prejudiced him because his attorney withdrew two days before trial and he could not adequately present finances | Landaria: trial date was known, Mark’s failure to cooperate caused attorney withdrawals; no right to counsel in civil case | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; denial not prejudicial and Mark caused his lack of counsel |
| Business valuation | Mark: $1,000,000 valuation unsupported; chancellor should have required reliable valuation or an expert | Landaria: offered $1,000,000 estimate on Rule 8.05 and testified to that value; Mark did not rebut at trial | Reversed and remanded — valuation insufficiently supported; chancellor must obtain competent proof or appoint/consider valuation expert |
| Lump-sum alimony | Mark: alimony must be revisited if property division (business value) changes; court failed to analyze Armstrong factors on record | Landaria: chancellor made on-the-record findings sufficient; Armstrong/Ferguson considered | Reversed and remanded as to alimony — must be reconsidered in light of new valuation/proceeds; record findings otherwise adequate |
| Contempt / incarceration | Mark: chancellor erred in finding contempt and jailing him for unpaid vehicle allowance | Landaria: Mark willfully failed to pay required vehicle allowance despite orders and invoices; contempt enforcement appropriate | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence of willful nonpayment; incarceration within chancellor’s discretion until purge |
| Attorney's fees | Mark: fees excessive and improperly include post-trial fees | Landaria: fees were necessary; she lacked ability to pay; fees related to contempt enforcement are recoverable | Affirmed — chancellor did not abuse discretion; awarded fees reasonable and permitted, including post-trial fees for enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (factors governing equitable distribution of marital property)
- Lacoste v. Lacoste, 197 So. 3d 897 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (insufficient business valuation requires remand)
- Mace v. Mace, 818 So. 2d 1130 (Miss. 2002) (reversed where business value lacked reliable method or support)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (factors for alimony awards)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (factors for awarding attorney's fees in domestic cases)