The entire concept of property division in a Mississippi divorce is rooted in fairness. In every divorce case, our Chancery courts are charged with the task of determining what is fair on a case-by-case basis. Typically, in a divorce, each spouse’s subjective view of fairness differs. Each spouse generally wants to keep as much of the marital property for themselves as possible following a divorce. And because of this general feeling and inherent goal of retaining everything possible in a divorce, a divorce can get ugly–and get ugly fast. In some cases, spouses have taken the “if I can’t have it, no one can” approach and dissipated–or wasted–marital assets that were otherwise subject to equitable (fair) distribution in divorce. A spouse’s wasteful dissipation of marital assets is a surefire way to complicate the divorce, prolong the divorce, increase attorney costs, and–most importantly–upset the Chancellor presiding over the divorce case. In other words, wasteful dissipation could be considered a “cardinal sin” in a divorce case.
“Wasteful dissipation is, by definition, ‘to indulge in extravagant pursuit of pleasure.'” Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So. 3d 274, 293 (Miss. 2009) (citing Webster’s II New College Dictionary 330 (1995)). Wasteful dissipation may occur during the marriage–typically in the time leading up to, or during, a period of separation–or while a divorce is pending. Accordingly, wasteful dissipation of marital assets is a prime consideration in both property division and alimony determinations in Mississippi. See Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993). Remember, alimony–or post-marital spousal support–is only awarded to balance the scales of fairness between the spouses following property division. Williamson v. Williamson, 81 So. 3d 262, 274 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (finding error where the lower court considered alimony prior to property division). So, the overarching purpose of examining any waste of marital assets is to ensure that one spouse has not inequitably wasted property that the other spouse would have been entitled to in a divorce.