Class 6 Case Briefs- Family Law
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Florida International University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by Mandipandi0520
Class 6 Case Briefs
Ferguson v. Ferguson
(1994)
Facts
Linda Ferguson (plaintiff) and Billy
Ferguson, Sr. (defendant) were married
for approximately 24 years and had two
children, one of whom was a minor at the
time of the divorce. During the marriage,
Mrs. Ferguson worked as a homemaker
and as a cosmetologist/beautician. Mr.
Ferguson was a cable repair technician
for a local utility. Through his
employment, he held pension and stock
benefits and a savings and security plan.
The couple owned a home, which was
subject to two mortgages, on four acres
of land. Mrs. Ferguson filed for divorce on
the ground of Mr. Ferguson’s adultery. Mr.
Ferguson’s mistress testified at trial that
Mr. Ferguson had hidden $30,000 so that
Mrs. Ferguson could not reach it. The
court granted Mrs. Ferguson a divorce
and also gave her custody of the minor
child, $300 per month in child support,
$400 per month in alimony, a lump-sum
alimony payment of $30,000, one-half of
Mr. Ferguson’s interest in his workplace
benefits, and the entire marital home and
land debt-free. Mr. Ferguson appealed.
Issues
Is it within the equitable discretion of a
court to award a wife, with little
explanation, substantially more than half
of the marital property plus support where
the wife had little personal income or
assets, the husband made a moderate
living, and the ground for divorce was the
husband’s adultery?
Rule
In awarding support and distributing
property under an equitable distribution
scheme, the court must consider the
fairness of the support and distributed
assets as a whole and must take into
account the contributions of the parties,
the value of the assets, the economic
consequences of the distribution, the
parties’ needs, and other relevant
factors.
Holding
No. Under Mississippi law, the division of
property upon divorce is subject to
equitable distribution.
Rationale
The key consideration of a court in
making its determination should be
fairness. Although awards of monetary
support are distinct from property
distribution, the court should consider
them together. “Where one expands, the
other must recede.” The court may take
into account the circumstance where one
spouse has contributed to the other’s
financial success but has little personal
earnings or assets. Factors the court
should consider in dividing marital
property include the contributions of the
parties to property accumulation, the
value of the assets, the economic
consequences of distribution, the parties’
needs, and other relevant issues. Here,
the court concludes that it was
appropriate for the chancery court to
award Mrs. Ferguson half of her
husband’s workplace benefits. Where a
couple expects that both will profit from
the retirement benefits that are earned in
the name of one spouse only and where
the other spouse contributes to the
family’s financial position through the
provision of domestic services or through
earnings that are used by the couple, it is
appropriate to award such spouse with a
share of the retirement benefits. The
court also concludes that the chancellor
had authority to award the marital home
and land to Mrs. Ferguson, but the court
remands such issue for further
consideration given the court’s opinion
presented here. Similarly, the court
remands the $30,000 alimony payment
for an explanation of the basis of such
award, such as whether it was intended
to provide financial security to Mrs.
Ferguson. In accordance with the
foregoing, the case is remanded with
respect to the issues of the marital home
and property and lump-sum alimony
payment.
Equitable Distribution
The fair but not necessarily equal division
of marital property in a divorce
proceeding.
Spousal Support
Commonly referred to as alimony, an
amount of money that one spouse is
legally obligated to pay the other for the
purposes of support and maintenance
while the spouses live separately or after
they divorce.
Mani v. Mani
(2005)
Facts
Spouses Brenda Mani (plaintiff) and
James Mani (defendant) lived primarily
on the substantial investment proceeds of
Mrs. Mani’s stock from a family business.
Both were college graduates. He and
Mrs. Mani met in 1970 and ran a
boardwalk amusement business until
retiring from it in 1993. After that, he
attempted to work as a real estate agent
but made no more than $20,000 total.
Mrs. Mani estimated that their monthly
budget was $7,360; Mr. Mani estimated it
at $13,143. In or about 2000, Mrs. Mani
filed for divorce after learning that Mr.
Mani was having an affair with a friend.
Mr. Mani sought permanent alimony of
$68,320 per year. The court awarded him
alimony of $610 per week, based on the
couple’s current standard of living and the
court’s determination that Mr. Mani could
earn $25,000 per year. Both parties
appealed. The intermediate appellate
court affirmed the judgment of the trial
court on the grounds that Mr. Mani’s
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
adultery was a factor affecting the
alimony amount. An appeal was taken.
Issues
Is a spouse’s adultery relevant to a
determination of alimony?
Rule
The misconduct of a spouse may be
considered with respect to alimony only
where it affected the economic condition
of the parties or where it was egregious.
Holding
No. New Jersey law specifies 13 factors
to be considered in a judicial
determination of alimony, including “other
factors which the court may deem
relevant.”
Rationale
Apart from that catch-all, the other factors
all relate to economic issues. That said,
the legislative history makes clear that
the “other factors” may include
misconduct by a spouse. Despite such
legislative intent, New Jersey courts have
declined to consider marital fault as a
factor in determining alimony awards.
Given the language of the statute, the
legislative history, and the fact that the 13
factors for consideration in making
alimony determinations overwhelmingly
refer to economic considerations, the
court concludes that such considerations
should remain the basis on which alimony
determinations are made. Accordingly,
the court holds that the economic
misconduct of a spouse—that is,
misconduct that influences the economic
status quo of the parties—may be
considered by courts making alimony
determinations. Other types of fault,
however, should not be considered. The
only exception to the rule is egregious
misconduct that is, by its very nature, so
outrageous that it violates the social
contract. The attempted murder of a
spouse is an example. In accordance
with the foregoing, the judgment below is
reversed and the case is remanded for a
consideration of alimony under the
guidelines established herein.
Concurrence/Dissent (Rivera-Soto, J.)
Contrary to the court’s belief, today’s
holding will not create uniformity and
ease of application. Rather, a flood of
litigation will arise over what constitutes
misconduct affecting the economic
position of a party. Furthermore, the
definition of egregious misconduct is also
subjective. Who is to say that it is not
egregious for a husband to commit
adultery with his wife’s friend and then
demand that his wife continue to support
him in a lavish lifestyle?