Howard Wilson Carney, III v. Andrea Leigh Bell Carney

DICKINSON, PRESIDING JUSTICE,

DISSENTING:

¶ 42. The majority and the chancellor justify this inequitable property distribution based on the theory that, had Andrea Carney not been awarded all of the equity in the marital home, she would have been awarded lump-sum alimony. Because Andrea Carney was not entitled to lump-sum alimony, I respectfully dissent.

*444¶ 48. This Court has provided that lump-sum alimony can serve two purposes,4 either to “aid the chancellor in equitably dividing the marital estate under the Ferguson factors,”5 or “to aid the chancellor in correcting an equitable deficit,…