239 So. 3d 545
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Timothy and Elizabeth Benton married in 2000 and had four children; Timothy operated two businesses (Tim Benton Tree Service and Benton Green, LLC) as the family’s primary income source.
- Parties separated in September 2013; Elizabeth filed for divorce in November 2014. Timothy was served but largely failed to participate in discovery and did not file an 8.05 financial statement or produce business records.
- The chancery court entered temporary orders for child support and alimony, and later held a trial at which Timothy proceeded pro se; he later sought to reopen the trial after obtaining counsel, but the court denied the request for failure to timely produce financial records.
- The chancery court declined to value Timothy’s businesses because Timothy did not provide records or seek a valuation expert; the court instead relied on Elizabeth’s 8.05 statement and bank/invoice materials she obtained.
- The court found Timothy’s monthly adjusted gross income to be $17,640.75, ordered child support (reduced from guideline amount) and permanent alimony of $6,000/month, plus private school, extracurricular, medical expenses, and life insurance naming Elizabeth beneficiary.
- Timothy appealed, arguing the court erred by not valuing marital assets (the businesses) and that the lack of valuation produced erroneous alimony and child-support awards; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancery court erred by failing to value marital assets (businesses) | Benton: court must value businesses before division; failure led to improper awards | Elizabeth: Timothy refused to provide records; court may rely on available evidence and proceed | Affirmed — court properly declined valuation when Timothy failed to produce records or seek expert; chancellor not required to value on incomplete evidence |
| Whether alimony award was improper given lack of business valuation | Benton: alimony tied to business value; absent valuation award is unsupported | Elizabeth: businesses treated as income source; court used available evidence to set alimony | Affirmed — court considered businesses as income source and set alimony based on best information; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether child-support award was erroneous due to valuation failure | Benton: child support should follow correct income valuation including business value | Elizabeth: court used adjusted gross income from available records and reduced guideline amount based on equities | Affirmed — chancellor’s child support calculation was permissible given record and Timothy’s noncompliance |
| Whether trial should have been reopened for business valuation evidence post-trial | Benton: newly obtained CPA records warranted reopening and valuation | Elizabeth: Timothy had ample opportunity pretrial and did not timely produce records; reopening not justified | Affirmed — denial of motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion due to Timothy’s failure to cooperate |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunaway v. Dunaway, 749 So. 2d 1112 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (chancellor may value marital estate from limited record when party fails to present full evidence)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (equitable-distribution framework requires valuation of marital assets)
- Johnston v. Johnston, 722 So. 2d 453 (Miss. 1998) (courts reversed when dividing property without established value or on incomplete evidence)
- Stribling v. Stribling, 906 So. 2d 863 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (chancellor may proceed on best information available when a party fails to provide accurate valuation data)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 67 So. 3d 5 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (declining to find error where parties failed to provide evidence necessary for valuation)
- Common v. Common, 42 So. 3d 59 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (chancellor may rely on 8.05 statements when parties do not supply valuation evidence)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (factors for alimony and equitable relief)