West v. West, 88 So. 3d 735

Background

Divorce in 1994; property settlement awarded Debbie half of marital assets and periodic alimony; Tim owned stock in closely-held West Quality and Coastal and interests in West Leasing entities; restrictions on transfer of restricted stock; Debbie served writs of execution on Tim’s distributions and stock; Tim sold stock back to West Quality and Coastal to satisfy loans; chancellor stayed writs and later held stock sale mooted the writs; subsequent rulings addressed alimony, distributions, and other remedies; this consolidated appeal involves multiple issues arising from the divorce and ensuing finances.
Debbie asserted she was entitled to half of distributions and the stock interests; Tim argued restrictions on transfer void or voidable and that the writs could be mooted by stock sales; the court remanded for a determination of material change in alimony and other issues; the court ultimately remanded most unresolved issues for new trial while affirming several determinations.
The court held that statutory transfer restrictions apply to both voluntary and involuntary transfers, repurchase of shares does not excuse a corporation from responding to writs, and judgment creditors may execute on benefits due to the debtor including stock purchase price, to the extent permitted by law.
The court determined periodically that Debbie is entitled to one-half of distributions paid to Tim from the West Entities as of the divorce; a future modification of alimony requires applying Armstrong factors if a material change in circumstances exists.
The chancellor’s treatment of debt and life-insurance provisions, including loans and 113 account advances, was upheld as lawful loans; the court remanded priority-of-liens issues and Rule 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Prejudgment interest on past-due alimony was affirmed; the West Entities’ dismissal was affirmed; several issues were remanded for new trial and further findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether periodic alimony can be modified for material change in circumstances.	West argued material change justifies modification of alimony.	West contended Armstrong factors not applicable; agreement enforced as-is.	Remanded to determine material change and apply Armstrong factors.
Whether Debbie is entitled to one-half of Tim’s distributions from the West Entities.	West claimed Debbie’s equitable interest includes distributions.	Tim argued distributions were loans, not benefits; restrictions moot.	Debbie entitled to half of distributions existing at divorce; issue of future distributions remanded.
Whether Debbie’s equitable interest is enforceable despite transfer restrictions on Tim’s stock.	Debbie seeks share in benefits despite restrictions.	Restrictions prevent title/ lien; voiding not proper.	Restrictions do not void Debbie’s equitable interest; issue commentary mooted for future effects.
Whether Debbie is entitled to prejudgment interest on past-due alimony.	Debbie sought prejudgment interest; amount liquidated.	Microtek supports discretionary approach where disputed amounts exist.	Prejudgment interest affirmed; vested right to alimony supports interest.
Whether Debbie’s writs of execution were mooted by stock sales and priority of liens issues.	Debbie argued writs should attach to Tim’s stock and proceeds.	Stock sales mooted writs; lien priority unresolved.	Remanded to determine lien priority; writs execution status to be reconsidered.

Key Cases Cited

West v. West, 891 So.2d 203 (Miss.2004) (recognizes alimony and property division framework in West I; material change remand guidance)
Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss.1993) (Armstrong factors for alimony modification)
Alterman Foods, Inc. v. United States, 505 F.2d 873 (5th Cir.1974) (context for financial arrangements in corporate entities)
McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss.1982) (McKee factors for attorney fee awards; McKee guidance cited)
Microtek Med., Inc. v. 3M Co., 942 So.2d 122 (Miss.2006) (prejudgment interest where liquidated or frivolous/bad faith claims)
Upchurch Plumbing, Inc. v. Greenwood Utils. Comm’n, 964 So.2d 1100 (Miss.2009) (utility commission and remedies; factors for fee awards)
Rogillio v. Rogillio, 57 So.3d 1246 (Miss.2011) (appellate deference to chancellor findings; equitable distribution concepts)
Taylor v. Taylor, 392 So.2d 1145 (Miss.1981) (evaluation of alimony and support arrangements)
West I, 891 So.2d 203 (Miss.2004) (central holdings on enforceability of PSA provisions and modification remand guidance)