Wildman v. Wildman

• Citation: 301 So.3d 787
• Decision Date: 28 July 2020
• Docket Number: NO. 2018-CA-01540-COA,2018-CA-01540-COA
• Parties: Daniel Wesley WILDMAN, Appellant v. Jenney Weeks WILDMAN, Appellee
• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi

301 So.3d 787

Daniel Wesley WILDMAN, Appellant

v.Jenney Weeks WILDMAN, Appellee

NO. 2018-CA-01540-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

July 28, 2020

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: KACEY GUY BAILEY, J. RICHARD BARRY

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JASON EDWIN WEEKS

EN BANC.

LAWRENCE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. On January 31, 2017, Jenney Wildman filed a complaint for divorce, custody, and related relief against Dan Wildman. On February 27, 2017, Dan filed an answer and counterclaim for divorce against Jenney. On May 31, 2018, the parties entered into a consent for divorce, withdrawing all grounds for divorce and agreeing to proceed on the ground of irreconcilable differences. Although some additional property and custody issues were resolved in the consent, the parties left the following issues for the chancery court to decide at trial: (1) the amount of child support Dan should pay, (2) Dan's alimony obligations, if any, (3) Dan's visitation and frequency of telephonic visitation with the minor children, (4) payments of the mortgage note, insurance, and taxes on the marital home, (5) the parent responsible to pay for the minor children's private school expenses, (6) equitable division of certain marital assets accumulated during the marriage, (7) parental authority to make final decisions regarding the health, education, and welfare of the minor children, (8) claiming of the minor children as dependents for tax purposes, (9) the appropriate trustee/guardian of Dan's life-insurance proceeds payable to the minor children, (10) payment of attorney's fees, and (11) the date of demarcation for the division of marital assets.

¶2. After a two-day trial, the chancery court issued its final judgment on October 15, 2018. The final judgment ordered Dan to pay Jenney $3,000.00 in monthly periodic alimony and $55,000.00 in lump-sum alimony, to be paid in five installments of $11,000.00 over a two-and-a-half-year period. Further, Dan was ordered to pay Jenney $1,200.00 per month in child support through May 2019, with the payment increasing to $1,800.00 on June 1, 2019. Jenney was awarded exclusive use and possession of the marital home and the equity in the home in the amount of $100,753.00. Jenney was also awarded the remaining funds in the parties’ joint savings account at Trustmark Bank ("TBS account") in the amount of $27,129.00, while Dan was awarded the balance of his Valic retirement account ("Valic account") in the amount of $214,620.00. The chancery court determined that the Mississippi Tax Commission Credit Union account ("MSTC account") was not Jenney's property despite her name being on the account but rather held that it was the property of Jenney's father and could not be considered a factor in equitable distribution or alimony. The chancery court denied Dan's request for midweek visitation, every-fifth-weekend visitation and daily telephonic contact with the minor children. The court held that Dan should have visitation every other fifth weekend as well as three phone calls per week with the minor children. Further, the chancery court held that Jenney had the authority to make final decisions regarding the minor children's health, welfare, and education and that each party would claim one child as a dependent for tax purposes. Finally, the chancery court held that Jenney should be named as the trustee/guardian over the minor children for the purposes of receiving any benefits from Dan's life-insurance policy. Aggrieved by the chancery court's ruling, Dan appealed.¹ We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3. Dan and Jenney were married on May 24, 2003, and divorced on October 15, 2018. At the time of trial, Dan was thirty-nine years old, and Jenney was thirty-eight years old. Both parties were in good health and gainfully employed in the medical field. The parties have two minor children: D.W. (born in 2009) and J.W. (born in 2011).²

¶4. Dan and Jenney both obtained their nursing degrees from the University of Southern Mississippi. After graduation, they got married and gained employment as registered nurses at Rush Hospital ("Rush") in Meridian, Mississippi. In May 2006, Dan and Jenney moved to Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Dan to receive additional training to become a certified registered nurse anesthetist ("CRNA"). While Dan was completing his specialized schooling, Jenney was employed as a registered nurse in the intensive care unit at Memorial Northpark Hospital. Rush paid Dan's tuition to attend school and an additional $2,000.00 per month as a living stipend in exchange for his promise to return to work at Rush for five years after completing his CRNA training. After returning to Meridian, Dan worked as a CRNA and at the time of trial was employed by Medical Foundation Inc., where he rotated through multiple hospitals and facilities, including the Meridian Surgery Center. At the time of trial, Dan also provided services on the "heart call team." Dan's monthly net income was $10,049.40. After moving back to Meridian, Jenney continued to work as a registered nurse at the Meridian Surgery Center. There were periods during the marriage when the children were younger that Jenney did not work or worked part-time, but Jenney continued to keep her license current. Jenney testified that she had special experience as an intensive-care nurse and experience as a pre-operative and post-operative nurse, which sets her apart from other registered nurses. At the time of trial, she was employed by the Meridian Surgery Center, working part-time or forty hours every two weeks with a monthly net income of $1,726.34.

¶5. Dan and Jenney separated on January 23, 2017, after Jenney suspected that Dan was having an extra-marital affair. Dan moved out, taking only his personal belongings, while Jenney and the minor children remained in the marital home. Jenney withdrew $49,500.00 from the parties’ joint savings account and $5,000.00 from their joint checking account, for a total withdrawal of $54,500.00, without Dan's knowledge or consent. On January 31, 2017, Jenney filed a complaint for divorce, custody, and related relief, as well as a motion for temporary relief. On February 27, 2017, Dan filed his answer to Jenney's complaint for divorce and a counterclaim for divorce. The chancery court held a temporary hearing on March 28, 2017, on four issues concerning support and other monetary monthly payments. All other temporary issues arising out of the pleadings were agreed to and stipulated to before the hearing, and those stipulations were attached to the court's memorandum opinion and order dated April 4, 2017. In that order, the court ordered Dan to pay, on a temporary basis, (1) $1,200.00 per month in "temporary monthly child support," (2) $1,800.00 per month in "temporary monthly periodic alimony," (3) the balance of the minor children's private school expenses, and (4) the monthly mortgage payment in the amount of $1,507.21.³ Following the entry of the memorandum opinion and order from the temporary hearing, the parties executed an agreed order, agreeing to deposit approximately $27,129.54 into the registry of the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County, Mississippi.⁴ Prior to the final hearing, on May 31, 2018, the parties executed a consent to divorce, and the parties withdrew all fault grounds for divorce and agreed to proceed on the ground of irreconcilable differences. Further, the consent to divorce set out issues that were agreed to by the parties and issues that were in dispute to be determined later by the court. The parties agreed that the chancery court would decide the following issues: (1) the amount of child support Dan should pay, (2) Dan's alimony obligation, if any, (3) what should Dan's visitation schedule be with the parties’ minor children, to include the frequency of telephone contact with the children, (4) payments of the current house debt, insurance, and land taxes for the marital residence, (5) the parent responsible for the children's expenses to attend Lamar School in Meridian, Mississippi, (6) equitable division of all marital assets accumulated during the marriage, (7) parental authority to make final decisions concerning the children's health, education, and welfare if there is a disagreement after Jenney and Daniel have conferred with each other, (8) claiming of the children as dependents for tax purposes, (9) the appropriate trustee/guardian of Dan's life-insurance proceeds payable to the minor children, (10) which party should pay the attorney fees and costs of the other, and (11) the date of demarcation for division of marital assets. On September 17 and 18, 2018, the court held a trial on the unresolved issues and issued its final judgment and memorandum opinion on October 15, 2018. Aggrieved by the chancery court's ruling, Dan filed a motion to alter the judgment on October 25, 2018. On November 29, 2018, the chancery court entered an order denying Dan's motion to alter or amend judgment and a memorandum opinion. Dan appealed. The appeal was assigned to this Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶6. This Court's review of matters of divorce, child support, and alimony are limited. Ferguson v. Ferguson , 639 So. 2d 921, 930 (Miss. 1994). "In domestic-relation cases, our review is limited to whether the chancery court's findings were manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or the court applied the wrong legal standard." Gwathney v. Gwathney , 208 So. 3d 1087, 1088 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). If substantial evidence in the record supports the chancellor's findings of fact, we will not disturb his decision. Id. Any legal conclusions of the chancellor are reviewed de novo. See Armstrong v. Armstrong , 618 So. 2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993).

ANALYSIS

I. Monthly Periodic Alimony

¶7. The chancery court awarded Jenney lump-sum alimony in the amount of $55,000.00. That amount was to be paid in five equal installments of $11,000.00 every six months until the total was paid in full.⁵ Further, the court...