Morgan David Ewing, Sr. v. Melanie Shae Ewing
203 So. 3d 707
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Morgan and Melanie Ewing divorced after a 2000 marriage with four children; they separated in 2012 and stipulated custody (Melanie) and visitation for Morgan.
- Temporary order (Feb 22, 2012) granted Melanie use of the marital home, custody, and $950/month child support; later Morgan lost employment, cashed out his 401(k), and filed bankruptcy.
- At final hearing the chancellor awarded child support (later reduced), sole custody to Melanie, distribution of marital property (with numerical allocations), $38,000 lump-sum alimony to Melanie (to equalize distributions), $500/month periodic alimony, and $10,000 in attorney’s fees.
- Morgan appealed, challenging the property division (including lack of demarcation and Ferguson analysis), the periodic-alimony award, and the attorney-fee award.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that periodic alimony was warranted but remanded for (1) explicit demarcation and a full Ferguson analysis for property division and any lump-sum alimony, (2) reconsideration of the periodic-alimony amount in light of Morgan’s other obligations, and (3) specific McKee findings (including Melanie’s inability to pay) before awarding attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ewing) | Defendant's Argument (Ewing) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor properly divided marital estate and set line of demarcation | Chancellor failed to classify assets, identify demarcation date, and apply Ferguson factors | Chancellor implicitly used divorce date and stated equal contribution | Reversed and remanded — chancellor must expressly find demarcation date, classify assets, value debts, and perform Ferguson analysis |
| Whether $38,000 lump-sum alimony (to equalize distribution) was proper | Lump-sum award lacked proper Ferguson analysis and calculation; numerical result appears mathematically erroneous | Chancellor awarded lump-sum to “even the division” of marital property | Reversed and remanded — lump-sum tied to property division requires Ferguson analysis; mathematical error noted |
| Whether $500/month periodic alimony was appropriate | Amount excessive without considering Morgan’s other obligations and standard of living | Chancellor found significant income disparity and other Armstrong factors supporting award | Affirmed as to need for periodic alimony; remanded to reassess amount considering Morgan’s obligations and reasonable standard of living |
| Whether $10,000 attorney’s fees award was proper | Chancellor failed to find Melanie’s inability to pay or apply McKee factors specifically | Chancellor stated McKee factors support $10,000 but made no detailed findings | Reversed and remanded — chancellor must make specific McKee findings, including spouse’s inability to pay after equitable distribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (factors for equitable division of marital property)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (factors governing periodic alimony)
- McKee v. McKee, 418 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (factors for awarding attorney’s fees in domestic cases)
- Collins v. Collins, 112 So. 3d 428 (Miss. 2013) (chancellor should declare line of demarcation date)
- Davenport v. Davenport, 156 So. 3d 231 (Miss. 2014) (distinguishes when to apply Ferguson vs Armstrong for lump-sum alimony)