Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Griner v. Griner

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

October 8, 2019

CHARLES H. GRINER JR. APPELLANT
v.
MELANIE GRINER APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2018

          MARION COUNTY CHANCERY COURT HON. JOHNNY LEE WILLIAMSJUDGE

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: S. CHRISTOPHER FARRIS

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: RICHARD ANTHONY FILCE ERIK M. LOWREY

          BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.

          McCARTY, J.

         FACTS

         ¶1. Melanie and Charles "Chip" Griner Jr. were granted an irreconcilable-differences divorce in Marion County. During their marriage the couple had one daughter and one son. There was a mutual decision by Melanie and Chip that Melanie would stay home and devote her full time and energy to taking care of the children while Chip would work and provide for the family financially.

         ¶2. During the divorce proceedings the couple provided written consent to the chancery court to decide alimony, equitable distribution of the marital estate, and equitable division of the parties' debts.

         ¶3. In light of Chip's substantial separate estate-valued at over $7, 000, 000-the chancery court awarded Melanie $3, 000 a month in periodic alimony, $480, 000 in lump-sum alimony with the option to pay in monthly installments of $4, 800 over ten years, and seventy percent of the marital estate. Chip was assigned one-hundred percent of the marital debts and ordered to maintain health insurance for Melanie.

         ¶4. Upon Melanie's and Chip's separate motions, the chancery court amended its prior order to detail the marital estate as including:

(1) The marital home and its surrounding land valued at $762, 500;
(2) Chip's twenty-five percent interest in the Florida condominium valued at $231, 250;
(3) the AG Edwards IRA, Griner Drilling Services 401(k), AG Edwards Investment account;
(4) forty-four shares of the Citizens Bank Corporation valued at $2, 860; and
(5) 6, 505 shares of the First Federal Bank Corporation valued at $227, 675.

         ¶5. Chip subsequently filed a notice of appeal. On appeal this Court found a calculation error by the chancery court in its valuation of the real property.[1] Griner v. Griner, 235 So.3d 177, 186 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). Additionally, we held that while the chancery court was within its authority to order Chip to maintain a life-insurance policy with Melanie as the beneficiary, we found the amount-$1, 000, 000-to be unreasonable and excessive. Id. at 188 (¶29). We also found that the final judgment contained a scrivener's error making it unclear as to how long Chip was to maintain Melanie's health insurance. Id. at (¶27). In one part of the order Chip was to maintain the insurance for eighteen years, and another part of the order required Chip to maintain the insurance for eighteen months, so we remanded for clarification. Id.

         ¶6. When we remanded this case back to the chancery court we assessed all costs of the appeal to Melanie. Chip filed a motion for recovery of the appellate costs, which was denied by the chancery court.

         ¶7. On remand, the chancery court revised the equitable division and awarded Melanie seventy percent of the corrected value of the marital estate. To compensate for the decrease in the equitable division award, the chancery court increased Melanie's lump-sum alimony award to $700, 000. The court also clarified that Chip was to provide health-insurance coverage for Melanie until she reaches sixty-five years of age. The chancery court further ordered Chip to maintain a life-insurance policy in the amount of $700, 000, naming Melanie as the beneficiary.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶8. Great deference is given to a chancery court's decree of divorce. Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921, 930 (Miss. 1994). This Court will not reverse such a decree unless it is manifestly wrong as to law or fact. Id.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Appellate costs must be paid from the first appeal.

         ¶9. For his first assignment of error, Chip argues that the chancery court should have executed this Court's mandate assessing all appellate costs to Melanie. As a matter of law this is correct.

         ¶10. In our 2017 opinion we ordered Melanie to pay all costs of the appeal, and the mandate echoed this language. Griner, 235 So.3d at 190 (¶35) ("All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellee."). A party who disagrees with an assessment of costs issued in an opinion may seek relief through a motion for rehearing under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 40. See M.R.A.P. 36(d) ("a party seeking relief may file a motion for rehearing under Rule 40"). If the mandate issues with a requirement to pay costs, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.