Johnson v. Johnson

650 So.2d 1281 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married on June 29, 1962. They have 3 children two of whom were minors at the time of the divorce. Kyle, the oldest of the minor children, was eighteen years of age and attended college while Kristin, the minor daughter, was a thirteen (13) year old high school student. Kyle will reach twenty-one (21), the age of majority, on April 9, 1995, while Kristin will reach majority on June 19, 2001. H is a fifty (50) year old executive with Mississippi Power and Light Company (MP&L). AH was a 'division director' earning a gross monthly salary of approximately $7,371, the equivalent of $88,450 annually. W is a fifty-year-old homemaker who received a high school diploma and attended a year of music school. Jane worked as an office worker and bank teller for one or two years prior to the birth of her first child in 1968 but has not worked since that time. She has no professional training. Kendall, Jr., the oldest son, was twenty-three years old and has a history of mental problems necessitating lengthy and expensive hospitalizations. Unpaid medical bills for Kendall, Jr.'s treatment resulted in H having a $ 113,000 judgment against him, plus attorney's fees, for a total indebtedness to the hospital of $142,000. H has assisted Kendall by paying Kendall's car notes, medical insurance, medicine, and by giving him spending money. W acquired nonmarital assets that she inherited from her parents. This included $50,000 in cash (held in a certificate of deposit in her own and her children's names), $3,200 in a checking account, a dwelling house in Purvis valued at $40,000, some timber land in Lamar and Forrest Counties worth approximately $98,000, and marketable timber valued at $ 95,000. Four timber cuttings over a 12 year period yielded $153,000.00 and H used the proceeds to pay family expenses, to add to H's savings account, and to purchase a 1984 van titled to H. However, from 1989 to the time of the divorce hearing, W had borrowed $56,000 against her nonmarital assets with which to support herself. H had a vested interest in an employee savings plan with MP&L valued at $45,415 as well as an employee stock ownership plan valued at $6,523. Wayne testified his retirement plan was funded entirely by MP&L and had no present cash value. There will be no benefits unless he reaches age 65. W filed a Complaint For Divorce alleging she was entitled to a divorce and custody of the two minor children, child support, use and possession of the marital home and its furnishings, periodic and lump sum alimony, life and health insurance, use and possession of the 1984 van, and attorney's fees. The chancellor awarded W $1,116 monthly in child support, and the sole use of the marital home, with H paying the mortgage debt. H had the option of discontinuing the mortgage payments upon the children's majority, upon granting W all equity in the property. W received a fifty percent interest in H's retirement plan, his employee stock ownership plan, and his employee savings plan. W received title to the couple's 1984 van. The chancellor ordered H to maintain medical insurance for the children during their minority and W for three years. The chancellor ordered each parent to pay 50% of college expenses for attendance at a state-supported institution. W made both monetary and domestic contributions to the marriage. W contributed $ 153,000 from her nonmarital assets toward expenses of the family. Wayne, who was in complete control of W's finances, replaced $66,000 of this amount. H had present and future 'great earning potential.' W's only anticipated income was the timber proceeds from logging and rental income of her inherited property. If H took the appropriate deductions during the year 1992, he would have a monthly after-tax income of $5,581 instead of $3,500 reflected on his financial declaration. Based upon a comparison of H's actual net take-home pay of $5,581 versus H's actual personal monthly expenses of $1,956, the court's accountant concluded that H had the financial ability to pay W the amount of $ 3,300 a month and still provide a decent living for himself. H appealed.