Alimony award reversed in Mississippi divorce
The Mississippi Court of Appeals recently reversed an award of alimony in a divorce case from Neshoba County, Mississippi. In Sellers v. Sellers, the couple had a marital estate valued at $304,230. The wife had a non-marital estate valued at $13,620 while the husband had a non-marital estate of $137,500.
In dividing the marital estate, the chancellor awarded the wife $142,990. The husband was given possession of the marital home, but the chancellor ordered the husband to pay $50,000 in lump-sum alimony to the wife for her one-half equity in the marital home. After this award, the wife's award was valued at $192,990 while the husband got $111,240. Following that award, the chancellor then ordered the husband to pay the wife $12,600 in periodic alimony. The husband appealed.
In reversing the award of periodic alimony, the Court reiterated:
"The law is clear in Mississippi that '[i]f the situation is such that an equitable division of marital property, considered with each party's nonmarital assets, leaves a deficit for one party, then alimony based on the value of the nonmarital assets should be considerered."
While the Court affirmed the award of the $50,000 in lump sum alimony, it noted that the award was not alimony. Rather, it was just a division of the marital estate as it was for one-half of the equity in the marital home.
However, the Court disagreed with the award of periodic alimony. After dividing the marital estate, the wife's portion exceeded the husband's by $81,750. As the Court stated, "[o]n these facts, we are unable to discern a deficit that was suffered by Nancy [wife] after the equitable division of the marital estate." Not only did the Court of Appeals reverse the award, but it also rendered--meaning, no award of periodic alimony.
What does this case teach us. Alimony is not automatic in Mississippi. In Franks v. Franks, the Mississippi Supreme Court reiterated the basic rules of equitable distribution of property in divorces:
- The first step is to identify the character of the parties' assets, both marital and non-marital.
- The chancellor should then, in light of each party's non-marital property, employ the Ferguson factors as guidelines and equitably divide the property.
- Then, if there are sufficient marital assets which, when equitably divided and considered with each spouse's non-marital assets, will adequately provide for both parties, no alimony should be awarded.
- However, “[i]f the situation is such that an equitable division of marital property, considered with each party's nonmarital assets, leaves a deficit for one party, then alimony based on the value of nonmarital assets should be considered.”
