Carney v. Carney
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00646-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00646-COA ; 2010-CA-00646-COA ; 2010-CT-00646-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-09-2013 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and the case is Remanded |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-29-2012 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution of marital estate - Social security benefits - Valuation of assets prior to distribution Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler, King and Coleman, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2010 Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court Judge: Vicki Barnes Disposition: APPELLEE RECEIVED $186,052.57 EQUITY IN MARITAL HOME Case Number: 2008-371-GN |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court found the Appellant's argument that all assets must or can be valued prior to equitable distribution where no means of valuation exists was incorrect. Nevertheless, it agreed with the Court of Appeals’ holding that, even if the chancellor erred by distributing the Appellant's benefits to him despite their unknown value, the error was harmless because no monetary amount was awarded The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO78042.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Howard Wilson Carney, III |
J. MACK VARNER
CLIFFORD C. WHITNEY, III
PENNY B. LAWSON |
||
| Appellee: | Andrea Leigh Bell Carney | TRAVIS T. VANCE, 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: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution of marital estate - Social security benefits - Valuation of assets prior to distribution |
| Summary of the Facts: | Howard Carney III and Andrea Carney agreed to an irreconcilable differences divorce and asked the chancery court to determine child support, alimony, equitable distribution of assets, and attorney’s fees. The chancery court determined child support, divided the marital estate, considered alimony but declined to award it, and ordered Howard to pay $5,000 toward Andrea’s attorney’s fees. Howard appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable distribution of marital estate The chancellor found that the couple’s house was marital property under the commingling-of-assets and marital-use doctrines. This finding was made on the basis that Andrea commingled money she received as a beneficiary of her sister’s life insurance policy in acquiring the property and used the property jointly with Howard as their marital home. But the chancellor did not allot Howard any share in the home’s equity. This created a significant disparity in the division of the marital estate. And by absolving Andrea from obligations on the second mortgage’s remaining balance and assigning the balance to Howard, the chancellor’s division resulted in even a greater disparity. Having found that those funds were commingled with the marital estate, the chancellor was required to treat those funds as marital and to distribute and/or consider them equitably under the Ferguson factors. Thus, this matter is reversed and remanded. Issue 2: Social security benefits Howard argues that Ferguson requires the chancellor to value assets prior to distribution. There is no caselaw to support Howard’s contention that all assets must or can be valued prior to equitable distribution where no means of valuation exists. This is especially true in Mississippi, since it is not a community property state. However, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that, even if the chancellor erred by distributing Howard’s benefits to him despite their unknown value, the error was harmless because no monetary amount was awarded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
