Myrick v. Myrick, 122 So. 3d 93

Myriek sought an irreconcilable-differences divorce after 26 years of marriage; chancellor divided marital assets and awarded Sheila alimony; Mike appeals on alimony calculations, fault findings, visitation judgment, and post-trial bank-account evidence.
Both spouses worked; three children; he earned more than she; retirement accounts comprised the bulk of Sheila’s assets, complicating cash needs.
Trial included contested issues on income/expense calculations, asset division, and alimony; the court issued extensive findings and later a judgment.
Chancellor relied on Ferguson/Armstrong factors to determine alimony and equal division of marital assets, noting Mike’s higher income and Sheila’s contributions to domestic and child-rearing efforts.
Post-trial motions focused on reconsideration of income/expense determinations, fault findings, visitation schedule, and dissipation of joint accounts; judgment ultimately affirmed on appeal.
The dissent argues fault-based findings improperly influenced the irreconcilable-differences framework and should be remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Alimony computation and factual support	Myriek contends incomes/expenses were arbitrary, inflating permanent alimony	Myers argues proper considerations under Armstrong were used	No reversible error; findings supported by evidence
Temporary and permanent alimony awards	Sheila should receive alimony based on needs and disparity	Court properly applied Armstrong factors	Alimony award affirmed
Findings of fault and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment	Fault findings inappropriate in irreconcilable-differences divorce	Fault can be considered under Armstrong	Court's fault finding affirmed (majority); dissent would reverse for new trial
Judgment omits visitation orders/parties’ agreements	Judgment failed to include agreed visitation and property agreements	Record supports adopted visitation order; omissions harmless	Judgment affirmed; issue deemed without merit
Post-trial introduction of dissipation evidence (bank accounts)	Evidence should not have been considered post-trial	Dissipation was properly before court via amended consent	No merit; evidence properly considered under record

Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (Armstrong factors guide alimony awards)
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (provides Ferguson factors for equitable distribution)
Curry v. Curry, 45 So.3d 724 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (classify assets as marital or non-marital before division)
Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (assets acquired during marriage subject to equitable division)
Bowen v. Bowen, 982 So.2d 385 (Miss. 2008) (appellate standard; credibility and valuation discretion)
Jenkins v. Jenkins, 67 So.3d 5 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (findings on valuation may rely on disclosures or testimony)
Driste v. Driste, 738 So.2d 763 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (limits on fault-based proof in irreconcilable-differences context)
Strange v. Strange, 43 So.3d 1169 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (visitation decisions require best interest and noncustodial parent rights balance)