Welch v. Welch
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00667-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-09-2012 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Marital property - Order for separate maintenance Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-24-2011 Appealed from: Holmes County Chancery Court Judge: Janace H. Goree Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED AND MARITAL PROPERTY DIVIDED Case Number: 05-0009 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Henry W. Welch |
PATRICIA A. RODGERS
KATHERINE T. MILLS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Susan Renee' Vaughn Welch | LUTHER P. CRULL JR. | ||
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 - Marital property - Order for separate maintenance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Susan Welch filed for divorce from Henry Welch, alleging habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, or, in the alternative, irreconcilable differences. Susan later amended her complaint to include adultery. Henry filed a counterclaim for divorce, alleging adultery and habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Alternatively, Henry sought a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The court granted Henry a divorce based on Susan’s adultery and divided the couple’s marital property. Henry appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Henry argues that the chancery court erred in classifying his entire 401(k) account as marital property, because the appreciation in the account’s value following the couple’s separation should be classified as his separate property. Generally, for the purposes of classifying marital property, the marriage runs from the date of marriage until the date of the final judgment of divorce. However, where an order for separate maintenance exists, assets acquired after the order should be considered the acquiring spouse’s separate property absent a showing of either contribution to the acquisition of the asset by the other spouse or acquisition of the asset through the use of marital property. While Susan filed a petition seeking temporary support and other relief, an order granting such temporary relief was never entered. Therefore, marital assets continued to accumulate until the entry of the final judgment of divorce. While the Welches were separated for over seven years, the length of their separation does not warrant a departure from existing precedent. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
