Hankins v. Hankins
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01783-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-24-2004 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Prenuptial agreement - Marital estate - Temporary rehabilitative alimony Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Southwick, P.J., joined by McMillin, C.J., Bridges, Lee and Irving, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-18-2002 Appealed from: Pike County Chancery Court Judge: W. Hollis McGehee, II Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL ASSETS, AND REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY AWARDED. |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jack E. Hankins, Jr. |
T. MACK BRABHAM |
||
| Appellee: | Amparo Hankins | JOHN H. OTT |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Divorce: Adultery - Prenuptial agreement - Marital estate - Temporary rehabilitative alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Amparo Hankins petitioned for a divorce from Jack Hankins on the grounds of adultery and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. The chancellor granted Amparo a divorce on the ground of adultery and awarded Jack possession of $371,676 of the total assets, including the house, acreage, and the farm equipment. Jack was also held responsible for $80,000 of the marital debt. Amparo received $67,200 as her share of the marital estate, her jewelry, a vacuum cleaner, VHS camera and miscellaneous dishes. She was assigned the remaining $500 of marital debt. The chancellor found Amparo entitled to receive temporary rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $650 per month for twenty-four months and ordered Jack to provide health insurance for Amparo for this same time period but if he was unable to procure insurance, to pay Amparo an additional $350 per month. Jack appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prenuptial agreement The day before the couple was married, Amparo presented Jack with a pre-marital agreement which protected her assets. Jack's assets were not mentioned in the agreement but, before signing, he verbally expressed the desire to have the same protections for his property to which Amparo agreed. Jack now argues the chancellor failed to honor the oral agreement Amparo made to extend the same terms to his assets as were used to protect hers in the written agreement. While couples may enter into prenuptial agreements, the agreement must be in writing. Although the oral agreement in this case may not be enforced as a valid prenuptial agreement, Amparo has never denied making the agreement, and this agreement, whether intentionally or unintentionally fraudulent, should be considered by the chancellor when determining the equities of this case. Issue 2: Marital estate At the time of the marriage, Jack owned a house, a ten-acre residential lot upon which the house stood, a chicken farming operation and fifty-seven acres upon which the farm stood. Jack argues that Amparo is not equitably entitled to receive anything but a portion of the net value by which the farm increased during the marriage, the same for the value of the residential property and a return of $10,000 Amparo paid for new windows and siding for the house. Marital property is subject to equitable distribution at the time of divorce. Assets which are attributable to one of the parties' separate estates prior to or outside the marriage is non-marital property and not subject to equitable division unless they are commingled with marital property or used for familial benefit. Jack's house was used as the sole marital residence and Amparo contributed to the maintenance and improvement of the house through her housekeeping efforts. This long-term family use of the property converted the residential house and lot into marital property. With regard to the farm, however, Jack has met his burden of establishing that the farm was separate property and the capital acquisitions were made outside the marriage. The farm and the value of the equipment remain his separate property and should not have been included as part of the marital estate. Amparo is entitled to an equitable distribution of the accumulated portion, or the increase in value of the business during the course of the marriage, and this is what should have been included in the calculation of the marital estate. Issue 3: Temporary rehabilitative alimony Because the value of Amparo's separate estate is roughly equivalent to his own, Jack argues the chancellor erred in awarding her temporary rehabilitative alimony. Alimony and equitable distribution are distinct concepts, but together they command the entire field of financial settlement of divorce. Because the issue of equitable distribution is remanded, the chancellor will be free to review the issue of alimony. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
