Estate of ILaRue v. LaRue


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-CA-02453-COA
Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-02453-COA ; 2004-CT-02453-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 05-15-2007
Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Property division - Debt - Marital home - Dissipation of marital assets - Periodic alimony - Attorney’s fees
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): BARNES, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-02-2004
Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court
Judge: Glenn Barlow
Disposition: CHANCELLOR GRANTED DIVORCE AND DIVIDED MARITAL ASSETS.
Case Number: 2003-0133 GB

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: WILLIAM T. LARUE AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF IKE P. LARUE, JR., DECEASED




BETSY E. WALKER



 

Appellee: MARITTA C. LARUE (CUTRER) JOSEPH R. MEADOWS  

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 - Property division - Debt - Marital home - Dissipation of marital assets - Periodic alimony - Attorney’s fees

Summary of the Facts: Ike LaRue, Jr. and Maritta LaRue agreed to an irreconcilable differences divorce. The court found that the mineral interests which Ike had conveyed to Maritta during the marriage were Maritta's separate property. The court found that Ike's half-interest in a $3,200 lot in Jackson was his separate property, as were the mineral interests titled in his name and his two bank accounts. The chancellor recognized that the commingled income from Ike's mineral interests and Maritta's mineral interests would be considered marital property. In the equitable distribution, the chancellor awarded the marital residence on Brown Road, valued at $123,890 and titled in Maritta's name, to Maritta. The chancellor awarded the 1994 Honda Accord vehicle to Maritta, with a credit for one-half the value of the vehicle against the balance of unpaid taxes and house insurance which Ike was previously ordered by the court to pay but had never paid. The court ordered Ike to pay the marital debt. Then, the court awarded permanent periodic alimony to Maritta in the amount of $700 per month. The court also awarded Maritta attorney's fees in the amount of $10,000. Ike filed a motion to reconsider the judgment. The court reconsidered Ike's contributions to the marital home and awarded Ike a fifty percent equitable interest in the house with Maritta to have exclusive use and possession of the house for her lifetime. The court also modified its ruling that the mineral interests which Ike had conveyed to Maritta were Maritta's separate property by finding that, due to commingling, certain mineral interests were marital property subject to equitable distribution. The court found that the mineral interests conveyed to Maritta should remain Maritta's sole property. And, the court reduced Maritta's attorney's fees award to $7,000. Ike appeals, and Maritta cross-appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Property division Ike argues that, if the chancellor held that Maritta's mineral interests were part of Maritta's separate estate, the chancellor erred because the mineral interests were marital. Alternatively, Ike argues that if the chancellor found that Maritta's mineral interests were marital, then the chancellor erred by awarding her one hundred percent of those mineral interests in the equitable distribution. Property clearly obtained by one spouse through gift or inheritance is nonmarital property not subject to equitable distribution. The mineral interests Ike transferred to Maritta were a gift from a source outside the marriage, namely, Ike's separate estate. Therefore, they became Maritta's separate property. Moreover, there was no indication that Ike's transfer of the mineral interests to Maritta converted the mineral interests into marital property through comminling or otherwise. Ike did not jointly title the mineral interests, but titled them solely in Maritta's name, evincing that it was in fact his intent that the property become a part of Maritta's separate estate. The testimony by Ike, accepted by the chancellor, substantiated the chancellor's finding that Ike intended the mineral interests transferred to Maritta to be Maritta's separate property. The chancellor did not err by finding that the mineral interests were Maritta's separate property. There was no error in the chancellor's award of the one-third interest in the McBee mineral interests to Maritta. In the judgment, the chancellor carefully and thoroughly considered the Ferguson factors in dividing the parties' marital property to arrive at an arrangement that fairly and equitably provided for the maintenance of both elderly parties. Issue 2: Debt Ike argues that the chancellor's assignment of the income tax debt, ad valorem tax debt, and the Cutrer debt to Ike was inequitable. Debts incurred for the benefit of the marriage are marital. Before assigning the debt to Ike, the chancellor considered each party's economic and domestic contributions, the disposal of marital assets, the market value of each party's separate and marital assets, and each party's mineral interest and Social Security income. Ike has failed to show that the chancellor's ordering him to pay the marital debt was not fair and equitable. Issue 3: Marital home Ike argues that giving Maritta exclusive use and possession for her lifetime was inequitable because Maritta will likely outlive Ike and thus he will receive no benefit from his fifty percent equitable interest in the home. The supreme court has approved of a chancellor's award of exclusive use and possession of the marital home for a period of time to a spouse based upon need. Given the facts before the court concerning Maritta's age and disabling health conditions and all the other evidence, the chancellor did not err by fashioning a remedy that enabled both parties to remain in their respective residences. Issue 4: Dissipation of marital assets Ike argues that the chancellor disregarded the second Ferguson factor by determining that neither party dissipated more marital assets than the other. The chancellor's ruling reflects that he considered and weighed all of the exhibits and testimony and declined to attribute the losses solely to Maritta. The chancellor's findings and conclusion as to this factor are supported by substantial evidence. Issue 5: Periodic alimony Ike contests the chancellor's award of alimony to Maritta in the amount of $700 per month. Ike has failed to show that Maritta's expenses were so unreasonable or incredible that the chancellor should have rejected them. Ike also argues that the chancellor should have relied upon a defense exhibit estimating Maritta's mineral interest income at $2,311.06 per month. However, the chancellor was within his discretion in rejecting that exhibit and in relying upon Maritta's estimation of her mineral interest income, which was supported by other documentary exhibits and testimony. The alimony award equaled the difference between Ike's monthly expenses and income. The award was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence nor manifestly erroneous. Issue 6: Attorney’s fees Ike argues that the award of attorney's fees was error because Maritta failed to show inability to pay. The evidence concerning Maritta's income, expenses, age, and inability to work supports the chancellor's finding that Maritta lacked the ability to pay her attorney's fees. Maritta filed a motion for the Court to award her the attorney's fees she has incurred in defending this appeal. However, Maritta cites no authority for entitlement to attorney's fees for defending an appeal. Therefore, the court is precluded from considering the issue.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court