Equitable Distribution

Equitable Distribution as the Gateway to No Alimony

The case of Jones vs. Jones (http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions?CO84022.pdf), decided April 30, 2012, is a reminder that, if the equitable division of the marital estate has made adequate provision for the spouses, there should be no award of alimony- not even nominal alimony.

In Jones, the chancellor carefully considered and analyzed all of the Ferguson factors (http://chancery12.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/trial-by-checklist-equitable-distribution/) as they applied to the case, and specifically found that the equitable division made sufficient provision for Jane Jones (she received 62.5% of the marital estate). He nonetheless awarded her nominal alimony of $10 a month in case she needed alimony in the future.

The COA affirmed the chancellor’s decision on equitable distribution, but reversed and rendered as to the nominal alimony. Judge Maxwell wrote for a unanimous court:

However, we do find manifest error with the award of “nominal” permanent-or periodic-alimony in the amount of $10 per month. See Armstrong vs. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278, 1280 (Miss.1993) (reviewing alimony awards for manifest error). We note the chancellor correctly identified and applied the Armstrong factors. See id. But he did so after acknowledging he had made sufficient provision for Jane through the equitable division of the property so that permanent alimony was not needed. Alimony should only be considered if the property division leaves one spouse in a deficit. Johnson, 650 So. 2d at 1287. “If there are sufficient assets to provide for both parties, then there is no more to be done.” Carter vs. Carter, 98 So. 3d 1109, 1112 (8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Johnson, 650 So. 2d at 1287).

By referring to the award as “nominal” alimony, it does not appear that the chancellor was trying to address an actual deficit in the property award. Rather, he admits he was simply leaving the door open in case future events prove Jane has a need and John has an ability to pay. Such a contingency plan, while well-meaning, simply is not supported by our law. Alimony is to be considered as a remedy to an actual insufficiency in the marital assets, not as a contingency for a possible insufficiency in the future. Because the chancellor found the division of marital property left no need for alimony, we find it was error for the chancellor the nonetheless award “nominal” alimony. We reverse and render the award of $10 per month in permanent alimony award.

A good way to think about this is that equitable division is the gateway to alimony. Only after the chancellor has evaluated the Ferguson factors and adjudicated equitable division, and then having found that the equitable division leaves a discrepancy, may the chancellor even consider awarding periodic or rehabilitative alimony.

A caveat: Lump sum alimony, contrary to periodic or rehabilitative alimony, is a tool to achieve an equitable division of the marital estate.

Reference: The Better Chancery Practice Blog, May 2, 2013

Filed Under: Family Law, Equitable Distribution; Alimony

Kindly visit our Family Law, Alimony/Spousal Support & Equitable Distribution websites for more information on this topic.