Stephen Anderson and Emmarie Anderson were married in 2007. They had three kids together. Stephen is an idiot. During the marriage he would tear up things in the house. Stephen also liked to beat the crap out of his wife. He engaged in beating the crap out of his wife two to three times a week.

As I said, Stephen is an idiot.

Here’s just one example: around 2009, Stephen punched her in the face and caused her to temporarily lose hearing in her right ear.

So here is what the trial judge did: After an analysis of the Ferguson (you will find this case on this blog you MUST read it) factors, the court found that Emmarie and the children should continue living in the marital home, with Stephen continuing to pay the mortgage.

The court specified that Stephen and Emmarie could sell the home when their youngest child reached age 21 or was emancipated, with Emmarie receiving one-third equity and Stephen receiving two-thirds equity. The chancellor also ordered that Emmarie be responsible for the upkeep, maintenance, and utilities of the home.

The court denied Emmarie’s request for alimony.

Finally, the court awarded Stephen and Emmarie joint legal custody and Emmarie physical custody of the children.

Stephen was ordered to pay $693.97 per month in child support.

The Appeal

Naturally, Stephen appealed the case.

Here is the legal mumbo jumbo appellate courts use: When reviewing a decision of a chancellor, this Court applies a limited abuse of discretion standard of review.” Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806, 810 (Miss. 2003). We “will not disturb the chancellor’s opinion when supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied.” Id. at 819. However, “[a] chancellor’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.” Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274, 285 (Miss. 2009).

So although Emmarie admitted she committed adultery, since Stephen beat the heck out of her all the time, the Appellate Court said the trial judge was right and Emmarie gets a divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.

The Appellate Court then found that it was okay that the trial judge made Stephen pay the mortgage payment as part of the equitable distribution.

This is the legal mumbo jumbo:

When dividing marital property, a chancery court may order continued joint ownership of the marital home with possession by one spouse. See, e.g., Selman v. Selman, 722 So. 2d 547 (Miss. 1998). Generally, it is better to award the home to the custodial parent. Hankins v. Hankins, 729 So. 2d 1283, 1287 (Miss. 1999). Further, a chancellor may order one spouse to pay the mortgage on the marital home until a child’s majority, at which point the house may be sold and proceeds split. See Selman, 722 So. 2d at 552.

Here, the court awarded the home to Emmarie, the custodial parent, and ordered Stephen to continue paying the mortgage until the youngest child reached age 21 or was emancipated, at which time he would receive two-thirds equity and she one-third equity.

Personally, I think the trial judge should have made Stephen pay the mortgage forever and give Emmarie the house but the Appellate Court might not have found that was okay. The moral of the story: it never pays to beat the crap out your wife.