131 So. 3d 1244
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Lynn and Keith Ward married in 1995; Keith worked as a pilot and in the Air Force, Lynn was a homemaker; two children (one with type 1 diabetes).
- Keith acquired a Kona, Hawaii property (titled in his name) and invested in a failed pizza business (FNS LLC); substantial losses/tax consequences resulted.
- Keith filed for divorce (2010); chancellor issued a January 2012 judgment and, after reconsideration, a modified August 2012 judgment.
- January 2012: chancellor allocated debts from Kona and FNS to Keith, awarded Lynn one-half of certain retirement accounts and 15/20ths of military retirement, and granted $4,000/month alimony.
- August 2012: chancellor shifted partial responsibility for Kona and FNS debts to Lynn, revoked her interest in certain deferred compensation due to those debts, attributed fault to Lynn (alcohol abuse), and reduced alimony to $2,500/month.
Issues
| Issue | Lynn's Argument | Keith's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable division and attribution of asset waste | Keith secretly invested and dissipated marital assets (Kona, FNS); wastes should be charged to Keith | Investments were not wasteful; Lynn benefited and was partly responsible; debts may be shared | Chancellor’s reallocation (Aug 2012) upheld; no clear error in applying Ferguson factors; neither party found to have solely expended/disposed of marital assets |
| Periodic alimony reduction | Reduction from $4,000 to $2,500 was erroneous given income disparity, needs, and standard of living | Chancellor properly applied Armstrong factors and assigned fault to Lynn (alcohol abuse), justifying reduction | Upheld: chancellor applied Armstrong factors and had evidentiary support for lowering award |
| Military retirement calculation | Lynn entitled to one-half of retirement accrued during marriage (pro rata by retirement points) | Keith argued only 36.09% of points accrued during marriage, so Lynn should get half of that (≈18.04%) | Upheld: chancellor awarded 15/20ths (75%) allocation and his approach was within equitable discretion; no reversible error |
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 for awarding spousal support)
- Byrd v. Byrd, 100 So.3d 443 (Miss. 2012) (standard of review for chancellor findings)