1982). Also, Robert asserts that the same rationale applies to the payment of court costs, citing Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704, 707 (Miss. 1990). Robert further contends that, in ordering him to pay Jane's litigation costs, the chancellor was penalizing him and it created a financial hardship in contravention of the prohibition against penalizing a party announced in Lenoir v. Lenoir, 611 So.2d 200 (Miss.

In his opinion the chancellor stated: Consistent with the ruling of the Court in Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704 (Miss. 1990), each party is equally capable of paying their attorney's fees, and, therefore, no attorney's fees are awarded in this cause, but both parties are receiving properties from which the fees can be paid or they may be paid from their earnings, except as follows. The Court does assess an attorney's fee of $1,500 and the costs in this proceeding against the defendant [James] in view of the fact that it was necessary for the plaintiff [Claudine] to bring an additional action to require that defendant [James] be prohibited from transferring the marital domicile and to set a previous conveyance aside.

Doug's monthly adjusted gross income was $2,834.03 and monthly expenses of $4,611.51. He had $300 in checking and no savings or investments. He testified that the money received from the buyout had been used to pay off various bills and living expenses. Doug argues under Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704, 707 (Miss. 1990), that "if a party is able to pay attorney fees, [the] award of attorney's fees is not appropriate." He contends that Debbie had the ability to pay her attorney's fees and he did not have the ability to pay.

1995) (quoting Smith v. Smith, 614 So.2d 394, 398 (Miss. 1993)) (citing Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704 (Miss. 1990)). In addition, the general rule as to whether or not awarding attorney's fees is appropriate has been established.

Although no citation was given for Martin v. Martin, this court found a published Mississippi Supreme Court opinion bearing the same name dated August 8, 1990. In Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704 (Miss. 1990), the court found that the determination of attorney's fees to be awarded in a divorce case is a matter entrusted to the sound discretion of the chancellor. In the opinion, the Supreme Court addressed the chancellor's failure to award attorney's fees to Nancy B. Martin in her divorce proceeding against her former husband.

The award of court costs likewise is entrusted to the sound discretion of the chancellor. Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704, 707 (Miss.1990). This Court has stated that, where the record shows an inability to pay and a disparity in the relative financial positions of the parties, there is no error in awarding attorney fees. Hammett v. Woods, 602 So.2d 825, 830 (Miss.1992).

The award of court costs likewise is entrusted to the sound discretion of the chancellor. Martin v. Martin, 566 So. 2d 704, 707 (Miss. 1990). This Court has stated that, where the record shows an inability to pay and a disparity in the relative financial positions of the parties, there is no error in awarding attorney fees. Hammett v. Woods, 602 So. 2d 825, 830 (Miss.

"If a party is financially able to pay her attorney, an award of attorney's fees is not appropriate." Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704, 707 (Miss. 1990). The law in Mississippi with respect to attorney's fees is found in Smith v. Smith, 614 So.2d 394, 398 (Miss.

Smith v. Smith, 614 So.2d 394 (Miss. 1993) (citing Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704 (Miss. 1990); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310 (Miss. 1986); Kergosien v. Kergosien, 471 So.2d 1206 (Miss.

[T]he determination of attorney's fees is largely within the sound discretion of the chancellor. Martin v. Martin, 566 So.2d 704 (Miss. 1990); Devereaux v. Devereaux, 493 So.2d 1310 (Miss. 1986); Kergosien v. Kergosien, 471 So.2d 1206 (Miss.