Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 5/6/97 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 95-CA-00372 COA

WILLIAM L. HOPKINS APPELLANT v. ANNWOOD J. HOPKINS APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM ROBERT TAYLOR, JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CHANCERY COURT OF PEARL RIVER COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WALTER W. TEEL FOR APPELLEE: REBECCA C. TAYLOR NATURE OF THE CASE: DOMESTIC RELATIONS TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: MOTION TO RECONSIDER FINAL JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE OVERRULED

CERTIORARI FILED: 7/29/97 BEFORE BRIDGES, C.J., HERRING, AND PAYNE, JJ.

BRIDGES, C.J., FOR THE COURT: William and Annwood Hopkins were granted a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences on December 8, 1994. William now appeals the denial of his Motion to Reconsider, arguing that (1) the court failed to grant child support; (2) the court failed to properly divide the assets of the parties; (3) the court erred in awarding an excessive amount for alimony; and (4) the court erred in hearing testimony regarding a letter written by William over ten years prior to the hearing. Because we find that the chancellor committed reversible error with regard to issues one and two, we hereby reverse and remand this case for reconsideration. FACTS William and Annwood Hopkins were married in Picayune, Mississippi on June 15, 1976. They adopted a daughter, Tanya, who was born on May 29, 1979. The couple separated in Pearl River County on March 29, 1993. William filed suit for divorce on May 6, 1993, on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or irreconcilable differences. He requested custody of Tanya, as well as support, because of the child's dismal relationship with her mother. Annwood also filed suit for divorce seeking custody of Tanya, equitable division of the property, and alimony. The court entered a temporary order on September 20, 1993, giving William temporary custody of Tanya, allowing that the family home in Picayune be sold, and requiring that Annwood turn over all of William and Tanya's personal belongings by a certain date. The couple subsequently entered into a written stipulation and consent for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The final judgment of divorce was entered on December 8, 1994. William got custody of Tanya, but no child support was granted. This was apparently due to the fact that Annwood's monthly income was $479.00 and that her only significant asset was an IRA account containing $2,636.14. The court divided the personal property between William and Annwood. Annwood was awarded a van. She was also awarded one-half of William's retirement plans from General Electric and Sverdrup, and one-half of William's 401K plan. William was further required to maintain medical insurance for Annwood and to pay for one-half of her medical expenses not covered by insurance. William was finally required to pay $1,000.00 per month in permanent alimony to Annwood. At the time of trial, William was retired and had a monthly income of about $3,300.00. William was sixty years old at the time of trial and had significant assets. He had retirement accounts from his employment at General Electric (worth around $69,000) and Sverdrup (worth around $8,600). He had inherited savings of $40,000 and land in Cullman, Alabama worth around $40,000. He and Tanya have since moved to the land in Alabama where they reside. STANDARD OF REVIEW "Our scope of review in domestic relations matters is limited under the familiar rule that this Court will not disturb a chancellor's findings unless manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or if the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard." Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So. 2d 1281, 1285 (Miss. 1994) (citing McEwen v. McEwen, 631 So. 2d 821, 823 (Miss. 1994)). ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSION OF LAW

I. WHETHER THE COURT ERRED BY NOT AWARDING CHILD SUPPORT TO WILLIAM. William argues that the chancellor erred in not awarding child support. William further argues that the chancellor should have made specific findings of fact as to why he deviated from the child support guidelines. Section 43-19-101(1) of the Mississippi Code of 1972 creates a rebuttable presumption that child support should be awarded to the custodial parent. If the chancellor deviates from, or does not follow, the guidelines set forth by Mississippi Code Section 43-19-101(1), he or she must state for the record that to do so would be unjust or inappropriate. Miss. Code Ann.

Download William L. Hopkins vs. Annwood J. Hopkins.pdf

Mississippi Law