Martin v. Martin

Decision Date11 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. 46780,46780
Citation271 So.2d 391
PartiesEdna McCrary MARTIN v. Colonel Rawley W. MARTIN, U.S.A.F., Ret.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Sekul, Hornsby, Wallace & Blessey, Biloxi, for appellant.

Johnston & Felder, Pascagoula, for appellee.

SUGG, Justice:

Appellant filed a bill of complaint for divorce, alimony, solicitor's fee and for custody of children in the Chancery Court of Jackson County, Mississippi, and later, a petition to cite appellee for contempt of court for failure to pay the amount due under a decree awarding her temporary support and for an injunction. Appellant filed, in a separate cause, a petition for an accounting and removal of appellee as custodian under the Mississippi Uniform Gifts to Minors Act.

These three causes were consolidated for trial and appellant was awarded a divorce from the appellee, custody of their four-teen-year-old daughter, monthly alimony of $100 for five years or a lump sum alimony of $5,000, if paid within sixty days of the decree, together with $100 per month for child support. Appellee was given custody and full support obligations of their eighteen-year-old daughter, as well as exclusive use of the couple's home for six months, but was required to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance and mortgage payments in lieu of rent, with each party having the right to partite the realty after six months if a sale thereof was not made. All property jointly owned by the parties was divided equally. Disposition of other property of the parties will be hereinafter referred to. From this decree, appellant perfected her appeal on the issues of alimony, solicitor's fees, contempt, injunction and the failure of the court to remove appellee as custodian under the Mississippi Uniform Gifts to Minors Act.

The questions of granting a divorce to appellant, the custody of the two minor children and the award of personal property to appellant were not raised on appeal and are not here considered.

The first question for consideration is the award of alimony.

The parties were married for approximately thirty years and enjoyed a high standard of living during their marriage. Appellee is a retired colonel from the Air Force and the parties lived in a new brick home, having a value of more than $30,000 on which there is now outstanding a mortgage in the approximate sum of $14,485. Appellant, during the course of their marriage, enjoyed the services of from one to four maids although she has performed all the housework since appellee's retirement. Appellee is 54 years of age and appellant is 50 years of age and never worked outside the home during the course of the marriage except for a part-time job which she accepted shortly before the separation. Appellee is well educated and has a masters degree, although he is not using this to supplement his income.

The decree recognized that the parties each owned an undivided one-half interest in their home, a brokerage account of the approximate value of $6,000 and a Florida real estate investment in the amount of $5700, subject to an existing mortgage on the home. Appellant was awarded one Plymouth Duster automobile, jewelry insured for $2500, the furniture which she removed from the home and was permitted to retain $850 that she withdrew from a bank account of the parties.

After making the awards listed above, appellee had a considerable net worth, including two boats, one pick-up truck, insurance having a cash value of $8504.80, bank stock worth $1550, a certificate of deposit with Keesler Credit Union in the amount of $4,000, the remaining furniture in the home and an automobile which he gave to the eighteen-year-old daughter.

There was a sharp dispute in the testimony about other assets of appellee including savings account at Great Western, an additional account at Keesler Credit Union and the application of the proceeds of $16,000 received as damages to the home and personal property after Hurricane Camille with the exception of $4,000 spent on repairs. On remand a more precise finding as to the net worth of appellee should be developed.

At the time of the trial appellee was receiving as a retired Air Force Colonel, retirement pay in the amount of $810 per month, a Veterans Administration allowance in the amount of $46 per month, together with income from investments, making his monthly income slightly more than $1,000. On the other hand appellant was only earning $320 per month from her employment at the time of the trial.

Appellant contends that the award of alimony was grossly inadequate and constituted abuse of discretion by the trial court.

It is a well recognized rule that an award of alimony will not be disturbed on appeal unless the award is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Armstrong v. Armstrong
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 13 de maio de 1993
    ...is seen as so oppressive, unjust or grossly inadequate as to evidence an abuse of discretion. McNally, 516 So.2d at 501; Martin v. Martin, 271 So.2d 391, 394 (Miss.1972). If we find the chancellor's decision manifestly wrong, or that the court applied an erroneous legal standard, we will no......
  • Cleveland v. Cleveland, 90-CA-0995
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 13 de maio de 1992
    ...seen oppressive, unjust or grossly inadequate so as to evidence an abuse of discretion." McNally, 516 So.2d at 501, citing Martin v. Martin, 271 So.2d 391 (Miss.1972). "The amount of an alimony award is a matter to a great extent within the discretion of the chancery court because of its pe......
  • Swiderski v. Swiderski
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 24 de março de 2009
    ...an abuse of discretion." Armstrong, 618 So.2d at 1280 (citing McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss. 1987); Martin v. Martin, 271 So.2d 391, 394 (Miss.1972)). ¶ 35. Terry asserts that he should have at least been awarded lump sum or rehabilitative alimony. However, "[a]limony is cons......
  • Martin v. Martin, 89-CA-0795
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 8 de agosto de 1990
    ...equally. The chancellor was not manifestly in error on this issue. McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501 (Miss.1987); Martin v. Martin, 271 So.2d 391 (Miss.1972). The chancellor ordered that the parties' pretrial arrangement on child support be continued temporarily pending disposition of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT