OF JUDGMENT: 10/12/2015
COUNTY CHANCERY COURT HON. PERCY L. LYNCHARD JR.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JERRY WESLEY HISAW.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN STANNARD FARESE.
GRIFFIS, P.J., ISHEE AND GREENLEE, JJ.
Bridget Warren Holman appeals the chancellor's findings
regarding the distribution of marital property, the award of
attorney's fees, and child support. Upon review, we
affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Bridget and David "Scott" Holman were married July
10, 2003. They have two minor children together, and Bridget
has a minor child from a previous relationship.
On January 15, 2013, Bridget filed for divorce on the grounds
of adultery, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and/or
irreconcilable differences. In March 2013, Scott
counterclaimed for divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel
and inhuman treatment and/or irreconcilable differences. Both
Bridget and Scott sought custody of their minor children and
an equitable distribution of the marital property. An agreed
temporary order was entered in August 2013; Bridget received
temporary custody of the minor children, and Scott paid $2,
500 per month in child support.
The case lingered because Bridget changed attorneys and there
were various contempt and discovery issues. The trial
initially began on June 16, 2015; Bridget was represented by
her fourth attorney. Late that day, Bridget testified about
an incident when Scott spanked one of the children. The
chancellor construed Bridget's testimony as an allegation
of abuse, appointed a guardian ad litem, and rescheduled the
The trial resumed on October 12, 2015. Before then, Bridget
terminated her fourth attorney and proceeded to represent
herself. At the conclusion of the trial, the chancellor
dismissed Bridget's complaint for divorce on the ground
of adultery, and awarded Scott a divorce on the ground of
habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor awarded
custody of the minor children to Bridget, divided the marital
property, and ordered Bridget to pay Scott's
attorney's fees for the child-abuse allegation.
After the trial, Bridget retained new counsel. Her counsel
obtained Scott's payroll records. Then, Bridget filed a
motion for reconsideration and/or a new trial. Scott filed a
similar motion. The motions were denied by the chancellor.
From this judgment, Bridget now appeals.
In an appeal from chancery court, we apply a limited standard
of review. Scott v. Scott, 115 So.3d 847,
849 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). "We will not
disturb the chancellor's factual findings if they [are]
supported by substantial evidence." McNatt v.
Turbeville, 162 So.3d 881, 883 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App.
2015). "However, we will reverse the chancellor if he
abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong or clearly
erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard."
Id. "We review questions of law de novo."
I.Scott's Financial ...