Sanderson v. Sanderson, No. 1999-CT-00915-SCT.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Citation824 So.2d 623
Decision Date22 August 2002
PartiesConchetta McNeer SANDERSON v. Robert Buck SANDERSON.
Docket NumberNo. 1999-CT-00915-SCT.

824 So.2d 623

Conchetta McNeer SANDERSON
v.
Robert Buck SANDERSON

No. 1999-CT-00915-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

August 22, 2002.


824 So.2d 624
John Wincie Lee, Jr., Paul Richard Lambert, attorneys for appellant

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.

824 So.2d 625
¶ 3. Mrs. Sanderson had ceased working outside the home during the lengthy marriage in order to devote herself to the rearing of the children. She had a college degree that would permit her to obtain employment as a school teacher, an area in which she had worked in the early years of the marriage. The evidence suggested that, if Mrs. Sanderson returned to the teaching force, she could expect to enjoy an annual income of approximately $22,000 from her endeavors

¶ 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
202 practice notes
  • Long Meadow Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Harland, No. 2009–CT–01775–SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 7, 2012
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 5, 2009
    ...¶ 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
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 14, 2017
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 18, 2013
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
202 cases
  • Long Meadow Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Harland, No. 2009–CT–01775–SCT.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 7, 2012
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 5, 2009
    ..."`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
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 14, 2017
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 18, 2013
    ...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......
  • 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