Sanderson v. Sanderson, No. 1999-CT-00915-SCT.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Citation | 824 So.2d 623 |
Decision Date | 22 August 2002 |
Parties | Conchetta McNeer SANDERSON v. Robert Buck SANDERSON. |
Docket Number | No. 1999-CT-00915-SCT. |
824 So.2d 623
Conchetta McNeer SANDERSONv.
Robert Buck SANDERSON
No. 1999-CT-00915-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
August 22, 2002.
Wayman Dal Williamson, attorney for appellee.
EN BANC.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
PITTMAN, Chief Justice, for the Court.
¶ 1. Robert Buck Sanderson and Conchetta McNeer Sanderson were granted a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The chancellor rendered a decision regarding property division, alimony and child support. Mrs. Sanderson was dissatisfied with the division of property and provisions for alimony, and filed an appeal. The case was assigned to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the alimony judgment and remanded that portion of the case to the Chancery Court of the Second Judicial District of Jones County for the determination of a suitable amount of alimony that would more completely address the financial needs of Mrs. Sanderson. After denial of his motion for rehearing, Mr. Sanderson filed a petition for writ of certiorari alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the alimony award. This Court granted certiorari and now affirms the Court of Appeals' decision.
FACTS
¶ 2. The Sandersons were married in 1977. At the time of divorce, the parties had two minor children and were awarded joint custody. Physical custody of their daughter was awarded to Mrs. Sanderson, and custody of their son was awarded to Mr. Sanderson. From the standpoint of economics, the evidence indicated that the parties had led a comfortable, but not extravagant lifestyle, financed in part by Mr. Sanderson's earnings and in part by dividend income from Mr. Sanderson's holdings of Sanderson Farms, Inc. Mr. Sanderson had acquired his holdings in the corporation principally from family gifts, stock dividends and stock splits. The stock was publicly traded and, as of the time of the divorce, had a market value in the range of $4,000,000. Mr. Sanderson was employed by Sanderson Farms at the time of divorce, and there was evidence that, through salary and dividends, Mr. Sanderson could reasonably expect an annual income in excess of $100,000.
¶ 4. The chancellor found, based on the evidence, that Mrs. Sanderson had gross earnings in 1977 of approximately $9,500 from dividends and interest gleaned from investments and an additional $2,500 from substitute teaching. She had inherited in excess of $150,000 in addition to a one-third interest in a farm valued at approximately $30,000. Her financial statement indicated that the inherited funds were in excess of $140,000, although she testified that they totaled approximately $120,000, and later testified, at the conclusion of the trial, that they were a little more than $100,000.
¶ 5. The parties owned a modest home valued at approximately $54,250, which was subject to an outstanding mortgage having a balance of about $30,000. There was no significant accumulation of other assets. Neither party had any funds in a retirement account or pension fund, except a small retirement account of several thousand dollars held by Mr. Sanderson. Mrs. Sanderson testified that the parties had intended to rely upon Mr. Sanderson's accumulated wealth in the form of his Sanderson...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Long Meadow Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Harland, No. 2009–CT–01775–SCT.
...abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625–26 (Miss.2002) (quoting Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 732 So.2d 876, 880 (Miss.1999)). This standard does not apply to questions of law, which a......
-
Lowrey v. Lowrey, No. 2007-CA-01988-SCT.
...¶ 26. "`A chancellor's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous.'" Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625 (Miss.2002) (quoting Consol. Pipe & Supply Co. v. Colter, 735 So.2d 958, 961 (Miss. 1999)). "However, the Court will not hesitate to rever......
-
Estate of Johnson v. Johnson, NO. 2016–CA–00338–SCT
...his or her discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied. Sanderson v. Sanderson , 824 So.2d 623, 625–26 (Miss. 2002). Likewise, we will not reverse the chancellor's decision if his findings are considerably supported by evidence in the reco......
-
Borne v. Estate of Carraway, No. 2011–CA–00267–SCT.
...erroneous legal standard. Long Meadow Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Harland, 89 So.3d 573, 577 (Miss.2012) (quoting Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625–26 (Miss.2002)). We review all questions of law de novo. Id.ANALYSISI. Issues raised by the Lake Owner Defendants and joined by ELAA. W......
-
Long Meadow Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Harland, No. 2009–CT–01775–SCT.
...abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625–26 (Miss.2002) (quoting Kilpatrick v. Kilpatrick, 732 So.2d 876, 880 (Miss.1999)). This standard does not apply to questions of law, which a......
-
Lowrey v. Lowrey, No. 2007-CA-01988-SCT.
..."`A chancellor's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous.'" Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625 (Miss.2002) (quoting Consol. Pipe & Supply Co. v. Colter, 735 So.2d 958, 961 (Miss. 1999)). "However, the Court will not hesi......
-
Estate of Johnson v. Johnson, NO. 2016–CA–00338–SCT
...his or her discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied. Sanderson v. Sanderson , 824 So.2d 623, 625–26 (Miss. 2002). Likewise, we will not reverse the chancellor's decision if his findings are considerably supported by evidence in the reco......
-
Borne v. Estate of Carraway, No. 2011–CA–00267–SCT.
...erroneous legal standard. Long Meadow Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Harland, 89 So.3d 573, 577 (Miss.2012) (quoting Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623, 625–26 (Miss.2002)). We review all questions of law de novo. Id.ANALYSISI. Issues raised by the Lake Owner Defendants and joined by ELAA. W......