Roberts v. Roberts
135 So. 3d 935
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Christopher and Yolanda Roberts married in 1985, separated in 2007; two children. Yolanda filed for divorce on ground of uncondoned adultery; divorce granted in 2008 with remaining financial issues reserved.
- Temporary order (May 2, 2008) required parties to split college room/board/tuition for son and awarded Yolanda temporary use of the marital home and $1,000/month spousal support until further order.
- Multi-day chancery trial resolved equitable division of marital property, alimony, and contempt claims; final judgment entered March 2, 2012.
- Chancellor found Christopher dissipated marital funds (affair-related spending), classified various accounts and properties as marital or separate, awarded Yolanda the marital home, cash awards for portions of retirement/E-Trade/IRA accounts and $50,000 (half of funds used to start partnership), and $500/month periodic alimony beginning March 1, 2012.
- Chancellor held Christopher in contempt for failing to pay his share of son Price’s living expenses for Mar–May 2009 and ordered payment of $1,852.85.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yolanda) | Defendant's Argument (Christopher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Division of marital assets (including $50,000 partnership funds, E‑Trade, IRA) | Chancellor properly classified and equitably divided marital assets; Yolanda entitled to awarded shares | Division is inequitable; Christopher says he received less value and chancellor ignored Yolanda’s $50,000 CDs | Affirmed — chancellor’s classification and Ferguson analysis supported; unequal division permitted and within discretion |
| Periodic alimony ($500/mo) | Alimony appropriate given needs, fault, dissipation, and unequal post-division resources | Award improper because Christopher lost employment and cannot pay; court failed to consider ability to pay | Affirmed — chancellor applied Armstrong factors, considered earnings, needs, fault, dissipation, and marketable skills |
| Contempt for unpaid share of son’s living expenses (Mar–May 2009) | Christopher failed to comply with temporary order; Yolanda proved payment gap | Christopher claims he paid $650/month directly to son during period | Affirmed — Yolanda made prima facie showing; Christopher offered no documentation; chancellor exercised discretion in calculating amount |
| Treatment of partnership and other properties | Marital funds used to start partnership were dissipation/secreted marital funds subject to division | Christopher contends many partnership assets were separate and chancellor misallocated value | Affirmed — chancellor identified partnership properties as separate where supported and treated the $100,000 draw as marital; discretion sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Byrd, 100 So.3d 443 (Miss. 2012) (appellate standard: chancellor’s factual findings upheld unless clearly erroneous)
- Brabham v. Brabham, 950 So.2d 1098 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (equitable distribution need not be equal)
- Chamblee v. Chamblee, 637 So.2d 850 (Miss. 1994) (property division principles)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (framework and factors for equitable distribution)
- Dickerson v. Dickerson, 34 So.3d 637 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (applying Ferguson stepwise approach)
- Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (marital vs. separate property classification)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (factors for awarding alimony)
- Elliott v. Elliott, 11 So.3d 784 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (purpose of alimony; permanent alimony when deficit remains)
- Janssen v. Janssen, 96 So.3d 23 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (contempt is discretionary and fact-specific)