Parsons v. Parsons

• Decision Date: 25 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 93-CA-01263-SCT,93-CA-01263-SCT
• Citation: Parsons v. Parsons, 678 So.2d 701 (Miss. 1996)
• Parties: Conner PARSONS v. Joyce Elaine McCaffrey PARSONS.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 701

678 So.2d 701

Conner PARSONS v.Joyce Elaine McCaffrey PARSONS.

No. 93-CA-01263-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 25, 1996.

John R. Reeves, Jackson, for Appellant.

T. Mack Brabham, McComb, for Appellee.

Before PRATHER, P.J., and BANKS and SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, Justice, for the Court.

On September 9, 1993, a divorce was granted by the Chancellor of the Chancery Court of Lincoln County, to Joyce Elaine McCaffrey Parsons, (Joyce) from Conner Parsons, (Conner) on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and awarded her, inter alia, six hundred dollars ($600) per month in permanent alimony.Aggrieved, Conner Parsons appeals to this Court the single issue:

Whether or not the trial court erred in awarding the wife $600 per month in permanent periodic alimony after a three and a half year marriage when the wife did not testify that she was unable to work and did not present evidence regarding her need for alimony?

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Conner and Joyce were ages 66 and 56, respectively at the time of the marriage.At the time of the divorce trial, they were ages 70 and 60, respectively.Prior to the marriage, Joyce worked full-time as a cashier at Baker's Pharmacy.She made about $8,839 the last year she worked at the pharmacy.She testified that she quit her job upon Conner's request when she married him.She and Conner both owned homes.They lived in his home and both continued to pay the mortgage on her home.During the marriage they purchased a $16,000 motor home which the Court ordered Conner to pay Joyce half of the purchase price or alternatively, for the Clerk to sell it and the profits be split equally.Joyce had debts totaling $1,824 on her home and Conner owed just over $1,000 for a heating and cooling system for his house.

Conner was diagnosed with dementia on December 27, 1991, and began taking medication.Joyce testified that his deterioration and bad temper were especially obvious in situations involving driving.She gave other examples of erratic behavior.Further examination in September 1992 led to a diagnosis of Alzheimer's.Joyce said that Conner's personality began to change during the years she was married to him and he became quite paranoid.

Conner testified that his health began to fail after the marriage and the medication he took made him worse.He was hospitalized twice and had nerve problems.He said everything he ate that Joyce cooked made him sick, that she continually pressured him to see a doctor, and that she gave him lots of medication.He said that she did not want him driving his vehicles and she would claim that whatever medicine that she was giving him would interfere with his ability to drive.He felt like she was attempting to make him sick or poison him.She would fix different food for him, claiming that she was on a diet.He had not experienced any problems with his stomach since she left.She said that she was a good cook and that she never tried to poison him, but did try to always have food items he liked, such as sweets.He said she often tried to get him to buy her and her granddaughter a car, which she denies, and that she encouraged him to give his furniture to her son from a previous marriage.

After she told Conner she was leaving him, Joyce withdrew half of what was in their joint checking account and joint savings account, $8,493.50 and $1,000, respectively.Conner received Social Security, a shipyard check and a Federal Longshoreman and Harbor Workers disability check all totaling $2,713.39 each month.In summation, Conner felt like she"was trying to prove that I wasn't fit to take care of my own business."Though undocumented with receipts, Conner presented figures on cross-examination that showed his expenses per month totaling $2,250.54.Joyce presented a financial declaration that revealed no income and monthly expenses totaling $1,264.37.

Joyce testified that while he was in the hospital the last time, Conner began ordering her around, not wanting her out of his sight.She said that his refusal to see the psychiatrist that had visited him in his hospital room and his refusal to get any help for his sickness caused her to take the drastic step of leaving him.She denied marrying him for what she"could get out" of the marriage.Joyce testified that Conner had promised her "the world with a fence around it.We would travel, I wouldn't have to work anymore and he didn't want his wife working."Since he had a car and a truck, they sold her car and part of the money went into their bank account.She then testified about his behavior toward her throughout the marriage and to his bouts of confusion and disorientation.Joyce testified that Conner suffered from incontinence and paranoia.His erratic, irrational, behavior led her to leave him.She claimed that when he filed for divorce, she had no alternative but to file for divorce in return.Conner failed to prove his grounds for divorce and the chancellor granted Joyce a divorce at the conclusion of all testimony.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Whether or not the trial court erred in awarding the wife $600 per month in permanent periodic alimony after a three and a half year marriage when the wife did not testify that she was unable to work and did not present evidence regarding her need for alimony?

Whether or not to award alimony and the amount of alimony is largely within the discretion of the chancellor.Creekmore v. Creekmore, 651 So.2d 513, 517(Miss.1995);Cherry v. Cherry, 593 So.2d 13, 19(Miss.1991).We will not disturb the award on appeal unless it is found to be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or manifestly in error.Creekmore v. Creekmore, 651 So.2d 513, 517(Miss.1995);McNally v. McNally, 516 So.2d 499, 501(Miss.1987).

The factors to be considered by the chancellor in awarding alimony are as follows: (1) the income and expenses of the parties(2) the health and earning capacities of the parties(3) the needs of each party(4) obligations and assets of each party(5) length of the marriage (6) the presence or absence of minor children in the home, which may require that one or both of the parties either pay, or personally provide, child care (7) age of the parties(8) the standard of living of the parties, both during the marriage and at the time of the support determination (9) tax consequences of the spousal support order (10) fault or misconduct (11) wasteful dissipation of assets by either party and (12) any other factor deemed by the court to be "just and equitable" in connection with the setting of spousal support.Ethridge v. Ethridge, 648 So.2d 1143, 1146(Miss.1995);Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280(Miss.1993).

At age 70, Conner suffers from Alzheimer's disease and his source of financial support is social security, retirement, and disability totaling $2,713.39.His expenses total about $2,250.54 a month.He is relatively debt free.

On cross-examination, several items on Conner's itemization of his monthly expenses were highly questionable, undocumented, thus somewhat suspect.In fact, even on their face, they were clearly not expenses.Conner listed $500 per month as "investment in bank for emergency."He claimed that's money "I try to put in, keep along with my savings."This amount is clearly savings as opposed to an expense, thus Conner actually had $1,000 more per month in income over expenses.There were additional questions raised about $400 worth of other alleged expenses.Conner claimed $200 per month as traveling expense, but he had no receipts, canceled checks or other proof he actually incurred such expense.He claimed $l00 per month in gift expenses, but again had no receipts or canceled checks or other proof documenting such expenses for gifts.Nor did Conner have proof of the claimed $100 per month donation to the church he testified that he occasionally attended.These expenses, if indeed they really are, as shown by this record, could be categorized as unnecessary.In Box v. Box, 622 So.2d 284, 288(Miss.1993), in examining expenses for a Colorado condo and two country clubs claimed as expenses by Mr. Box, this Court stated, 'there is no indication that these can be called "necessary." 'As in Box, we find these expenses, suspect though they are, to not be necessary.Thus, the Chancellor heard testimony that revealed that Conner had $500 that clearly was not an expense and another $400 that was highly suspect as an alleged expense and not necessary.There was sufficient proof before the Chancellor that Conner's expenses were not nearly as high as suggested by his financial declaration or his testimony, thus enabling Conner to pay some reasonable sum of alimony to Joyce who had a broken commitment from Conner, no income, and $1264.37 in monthly expenses.

Conner contends that there was not sufficient evidence at trial concerning Joyce's ability to gain employment or establish her earning capacity.Before her marriage to Conner in 1989, Joyce had been single since 1974.She had worked at the pharmacy almost three years, and, before that, she worked nine years for an insurance company.She was supporting herself when she met Conner.She gave that employment up at Conner's insistence and became a housewife, which is a factor that may be considered by the chancellor in determining alimony.Box v. Box622 So.2d 284, 289(Miss.1993);Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435, 438(Miss.1988).

In Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 928(Miss.1994), this Court issued guidelines for chancellors to consider including, "[c]ontribution to the stability and harmony of the martial and family relationships as measured by quality, quantity of time spent on family duties and duration of the marriage."At the time of the divorce, Joyce was not employed.Due to her role as the dutiful housewife, Joyce believed that she was entitled to alimony.As she put it, "considering what I've been through, I feel like I'm due something and what he told me at...