Marshall v. Marshall
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00436-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-00436-COA ; 2005-CT-00436-SCT ; 2005-CT-00436-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-12-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Marital assets - Value of marital home Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, P.J., BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Dissenting Author : LEE, P.J. Dissent Joined By : IRVING, CHANDLER AND ISHEE, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-18-2005 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Vicki Barnes Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED, DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS Case Number: 2003-278GN |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | PAUL M. MARSHALL |
WREN CARROLL WAY |
||
| Appellee: | SHARON R. MARSHALL | MARK W. PREWITT |
|
|
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 assets - Value of marital home |
| Summary of the Facts: | Sharon Marshall was granted a divorce from Paul Marshall on the grounds of adultery. The final judgment equitably divided the parties’ assets and awarded Sharon alimony and attorney’s fees. Paul appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Marital assets Paul argues that a 1996 temporary order entered by the chancellor created a line of demarcation and a presumption arose that all property accumulated by the parties as marital property ended, and the presumption that property acquired thereafter was presumed to be each party’s separate property. Assets acquired after an order for separate maintenance should be considered the separate property of the parties, 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. This principle applies to temporary support orders. The 1996 temporary order was entered in a case which was dismissed in 2003, and Paul was relieved of the duties, responsibilities and obligations under the 1996 temporary order. As a result, after the dismissal, Sharon had no right or authority to enforce Paul’s payment under the 1996 temporary order. At that time, Paul and Sharon were legally married and there was no pending divorce action. Hence, there was no line of demarcation for division between marital and non-marital property. Issue 2: Marital home Paul argues that the chancellor erred in the valuation of the marital domicile. While the parties did stipulate that the value of the marital dwelling was $65,000, the chancellor was free to take into account any necessary repairs that would need to be made and allocate the costs of repairs to the parties. Only the value of the marital dwelling was agreed upon in the stipulations. The written stipulation did not consider repairs. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
