Segree v. Segree
46 So. 3d 861
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Frank Segree III and Susan Segree divorced; final judgment awarded Susan custody of children, home use, and specific assets, with Frank paying some debts and alimony and child support.
- Judgment: Susan received the marital home, portions of retirement accounts, alimony, and attorney’s fees; Frank received specified personal property and debts to pay.
- Chancery court later amended to require Frank to provide medical insurance for Rebecca and medical costs, and to adjust some personal property awards.
- Both parties moved for reconsideration; on appeal, the court affirmed certain portions (medical insurance, child credit-card debts, attorney’s fees) but reversed and remanded regarding non-stipulated assets, alimony, and Rebecca’s child support due to Ferguson-factor analysis with insufficient findings.
- Appellate court held that Ferguson factors required explicit findings of fact; lack of Ferguson analysis requires reversal for those asset and support provisions and remand for proper factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the chancellor abuse Ferguson analysis on asset division? | Segree argues Ferguson factors were not properly applied and no specific findings were given. | Segree contends the assets were largely stipulated; Ferguson analysis unnecessary for those items. | Remand for specific Ferguson-factor findings required. |
| Is the alimony award proper given asset division and remand? | Alimony should be assessed with the total asset distribution; current award may be inappropriate if assets are revisited. | Alimony stands as court’s discretionary decision independent of asset division. | Remand on alimony requested; Armstrong analysis recommended on remand. |
| Whether Rebecca’s child support and emancipation status were correctly determined? | Rebecca’s emancipation status and support obligation were not properly explained; Rebecca may be emancipated or still a dependent/employee status unclear. | Court had discretion to treat Rebecca as emancipated given her age and schooling status; evidence supports some support. | Remand for clearer reasoning on emancipation status and its effect on support. |
| Should attorney’s fees on appeal be awarded to Susan given reversal on core issues? | On remand, Attorney’s fees may be reconsidered if Ferguson analysis changes result. | Because key issues are reversed, fees on appeal should not be awarded. | No appellate fees awarded for Susan. |
| Was the trial court’s award of Rebecca’s medical costs and credit-card debts properly upheld? | Frank should not be obliged to pay beyond established support if Rebecca is emancipated. | Court acted within discretion to maintain support beyond emancipation considerations. | Affirmed on medical costs and credit-card debts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 689 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (establishes Ferguson factors for equitable distribution)
- Smith v. Smith, 994 So.2d 882 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (portfolio of factors for asset division)
- Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So.3d 274 (Miss.2009) (necessity of Ferguson-factor findings)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 823 So.2d 1156 (Miss.2002) (reversal for lack of Ferguson findings)
- Heigle v. Heigle, 771 So.2d 341 (Miss.2000) (remand when Ferguson analysis missing)
- Baker v. Baker, 807 So.2d 476 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (lack of Ferguson analysis requires remand)
- Lauro v. Lauro, 847 So.2d 843 (Miss.2003) (all property division and alimony should be considered with child support)
- Elliott v. Elliott, 11 So.3d 784 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (permanent alimony considerations in overall settlement)