White v. White

Citations: 557 So. 2d 480; 1989 WL 160457Docket: 07-59457

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; December 19, 1989; Mississippi; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Martha Lynn White and Dudley Hearn White were granted a divorce on June 7, 1988, by the chancellor, who found grounds for the divorce based on habitual, cruel, and inhuman treatment as established by Mrs. White. Mrs. White appealed the judgment, raising five issues, of which only one had merit, leading to a reversal and remand of the case. Mr. White cross-appealed on six issues, five being responses to Mrs. White's claims, but these were deemed meritless. The couple, married on November 5, 1967, had no children together but each had children from previous marriages. Mrs. White supported her husband through various roles, including as a clerk and real estate agent, and played a significant part in developing his business by encouraging investments in multi-unit housing. She was instrumental in the design and decoration of their properties, including the Briars apartment complex, which is valued at $1.8 million. Throughout their marriage, she actively promoted Mr. White's career through community involvement and entertaining business associates, while also managing their household.

Mr. White's declining health in the later years of his marriage saw Mrs. White take on caregiving roles, maintaining their relationship until a violent incident on June 16, 1986, when Mr. White attacked her with a hammer, resulting in stitches and exacerbating her medical issues, including colon problems, nervousness, headaches, and insomnia. Despite the attack, Mrs. White expressed forgiveness and described Mr. White positively, attributing the violence to stress from her purchase of a condominium. Mr. White, while not recalling the attack, claimed provocation due to his belief that she overspent on the condo and noted that their marital issues stemmed more from this purchase than from her occasional refusal of intimacy or shared activities.

The document addresses a legal proposition regarding the adequacy of alimony awarded to Mrs. White following their marriage, specifically whether $50,000 or 3.3% of Mr. White's estate was an abuse of discretion. The couple's assets grew significantly during their marriage, with Mr. White's estate valued over $1.5 million at trial while Mrs. White's estate was approximately $304,118. Mr. White, aged 78 and suffering from Parkinson's disease, had monthly income exceeding $4,200 against expenses of about $2,363.50, leaving him with sufficient funds for alimony. Meanwhile, Mrs. White, aged 61, anticipated receiving survivor benefits of $1,199.10 monthly after Mr. White's death and had a modest estate primarily consisting of personal belongings and properties with debt. Her monthly expenses were significantly lower than during the marriage, underscoring the financial disparity between the two parties.

The chancellor determined that Mrs. White is entitled to a $50,000 lump sum alimony based on conflicting evidence regarding the parties' financial situations. The trial judge's factual findings are crucial and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. The hearing featured extensive evidence, including fourteen witnesses, five volumes of records, and fifty-one exhibits, although the judgment lacked detailed findings of fact.

In discussing relevant law, the court referenced Cheatham v. Cheatham, which outlines factors affecting lump sum alimony awards: the recipient's contribution to the payor's wealth, the duration of the marriage, the recipient’s financial independence, and the need for financial security. A key factor highlighted is the disparity in the separate estates of the spouses.

Applying these factors, Mrs. White significantly contributed to Mr. White's wealth by resigning from her job to support his real estate business and later assisting with business decisions and property designs. However, her claims were challenged by testimony from the opposing party, including assertions that she had minimal involvement in the business and lacked formal employment documentation. Additionally, Mr. White's son claimed that he, not Mrs. White, initiated the development of the apartment complex and that her contributions were limited.

Mrs. White actively supported her husband’s business through social engagements and community involvement, embodying the role of a devoted wife while managing household responsibilities. As Mr. White’s health declined, she took on caregiving roles, demonstrating her commitment. The marriage lasted 19 years, ending due to Mr. White’s violent actions against her. The court notes that while Mrs. White's estate is valued at approximately $300,000, burdened by significant debt, Mr. White’s estate is estimated at around $500,000 and capable of generating substantial monthly income. Despite Mrs. White having some financial security through social security benefits, alimony, and rental income, she is still entitled to a share of the couple’s accumulated wealth, given her contributions during the marriage. The court concludes that awarding lump sum alimony is justified, emphasizing that spouses who contribute to the accumulation of wealth during marriage are entitled to an equitable portion of that wealth, particularly when there is a significant disparity in the parties' estates.

Guidance on lump sum alimony amounts is derived from prior case law. In Schilling v. Schilling, the court clarified that a standard of ten percent of the husband’s net estate does not dictate the minimum or maximum award. In that case, the wife, lacking substantial assets, contributed significantly to her husband's financial success, leading to an award of about 33% of his net worth, which was estimated at $750,000. Similarly, in Tutor v. Tutor, where the husband’s net worth ranged between $900,000 and $1,488,000, the court increased the wife's award from $50,000 to $150,000, representing approximately ten percent of his wealth, recognizing the wife's minimal assets. Other cases also reflect awards around ten percent but do not establish it as an optimal figure. The court emphasized that equitable distribution should consider both cash and non-cash contributions, such as domestic and business-related services, which hold economic value. In the case at hand, the trial court erred by limiting the lump sum to $50,000, given the significant increase in wealth during the marriage and Mrs. White's substantial contributions, including quitting jobs to support her husband’s business. The decision is reversed and remanded for a more comprehensive evaluation of the appropriate lump sum amount based on these contributions.