McFarland v. McFarland
105 So. 3d 1111
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Husband appeals trial court’s lump-sum alimony, temporary alimony, and interest awards to Wife.
- Trial court found Lump-sum alimony appropriate under Ferguson/Cheatham factors and that security was needed for Wife.
- Temporary alimony (500 per month) continued under the court’s equity-based enforcement despite a September 2009 property settlement agreement.
- Court awarded interest on net past-due obligations at 8% and limited interest to net past-due amounts, not the full sums owed.
- Final Amended Judgment (2011) included division of Fidelity IRA, home value, and other assets; the Fidelity IRA was later clarified as being subject to a QDRO but not entered until after final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lump-sum alimony was properly awarded | McFarland contends the court misvalued assets and income and erred due to near-retirement age. | McFarland argues the court overstated Wife’s needs and undervalued his ability to pay. | Lump-sum alimony affirmed; substantial evidence supports Ferguson/Cheatham considerations. |
| Whether interest on past-due sums was properly awarded | D’Anne argues interest should also run on sums she owed Skip. | Skip contends interest on the net past-due obligation was improper if not on all sums. | Affirmed; interest awarded on net past-due obligations, not on entire amounts. |
| Whether continuing $500/month under temporary order violated the parties’ agreement | Agreement should trump court-ordered support; contract governs. | Court properly enforced temporary alimony due to equity and reservation of alimony to court. | Affirmed; temporary alimony continuation was equitable and within the court’s contract-reserving authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yelverton v. Yelverton, 961 So.2d 19 (Miss. 2007) (applies Ferguson factors to lump-sum alimony rulings; substantial-evidence standard)
- Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435 (Miss. 1988) (supports factors for lump-sum alimony and needs-based considerations)
- Bland v. Bland, 629 So.2d 582 (Miss. 1993) (reaffirms Cheatham factors may be considered for small lump-sum awards)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (establishes factors for asset division and alimony in divorce)
- Harris v. Harris, 988 So.2d 376 (Miss. 2008) (case-law on contract interpretation in divorce proceedings)
- Arcadia Farms P’ship v. Audubon Ins. Co., 77 So.3d 100 (Miss. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for prejudgment interest)