Hunt v. Asanov
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00192-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-26-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Child support - Clean hands doctrine - Distribution of marital property Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-18-2007 Appealed from: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Kenneth M. Burns Disposition: MOTION FOR CONTEMPT DENIED; EQUITABLE DIVISION OF COMPANY ORDERED; MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PASSED FOR CONSIDERATION WITH THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. Case Number: 01-0063(B) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MARINA Y. ASANOV HUNT |
DEWITT T. HICKS, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | ALEXANDER N. ASANOV | ALEXANDER N. ASANOV (PRO SE) | ||
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: | Child support - Clean hands doctrine - Distribution of marital property |
| Summary of the Facts: | In a prior appeal involving Marina Asanov Hunt and Dr. Alexander Asanov, Dr. Asanov appealed issues concerning the validity of the parties’ foreign divorce decree, the failure to hold Hunt in contempt, the division of marital property, and child custody. Hunt cross-appealed, seeking a determination on child support and sanctions upon Dr. Asanov for filing a frivolous appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor’s recognition of the parties’ Russian divorce decree, declination to hold Hunt in contempt, dismissal of Dr. Asanov’s attempt to divide the marital property, and grant of sole physical and legal child custody. However, the Court found that there was no judgment regarding child support and dismissed this point of Hunt’s cross-appeal. The Court also declined to impose sanctions on Dr. Asanov. Since that decision, the parties have returned to the chancery court seeking adjudication regarding child support, contempt, and equitable division of a company owned by the parties. The chancery court found that Dr. Asanov did not owe an arrearage in his child support obligations and declined to hold Dr. Asanov in contempt. The parties’ company, BioElectroSpec, Inc., was divided by the chancellor, granting Hunt a twenty-five percent interest and presenting Dr. Asanov the option of purchasing Hunt’s interest for a specified amount. Hunt appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Child support Hunt argues that while the chancellor found that Dr. Asanov fully paid his child support obligations in the amount of $16,250, under the Russian decree Dr. Asanov should have paid approximately $70,000 in child support. Hunt argues that the chancellor’s departure from the Russian child support order was an erroneous downward modification of Dr. Asanov’s child support obligations. Hunt also argues that the chancellor’s decision was inappropriate under the clean hands doctrine because Dr. Asanov was in arrearage under the original Russian child support order when he sought relief. The clean hands doctrine prevents a parent from receiving a modification of a child support order when that parent is guilty of willful contempt of the order mandating the support. Dr. Asanov’s failure to pay under the Russian child support order cannot be characterized as contumacious. Within a period of approximately one week, two separate child support orders were issued by the chancery court. One order was issued enrolling the Russian child support order nunc pro tunc, but it failed to specify a dollar amount owed. The other order specified a dollar amount owed and a date when the payments should commence. When the parties sought a clarification or reconciliation of these two orders, the chancery court refused to rule. Both Hunt and Dr. Asanov were then left to guess which order controlled the child support obligations of Dr. Asanov. Before a party may be held in contempt for failure to comply with a judgment, the judgment must be complete within itself leaving open no matter or description or designation out of which contention may arise as to meaning. When Dr. Asanov began paying monthly child support payments of $625, which was the amount ordered under the first child support decree, he continued to pay this amount and no appeal was taken. It is entirely reasonable to infer that Dr. Asanov was under the impression that he was in compliance with the court order of child support. Therefore, Dr. Asanov did not come into the chancery court seeking a downward modification of his child support obligations with unclean hands. Issue 2: Distribution of marital property In the order adjudicating the parties’ marital property division, the chancellor found that BioElectroSpec, Inc., was an asset acquired during the marriage; thus, it became marital property subject to equitable division. The chancellor presented Dr. Asanov the option of either formally transferring to Hunt a twenty-five percent interest in the parties’ corporation or purchase Hunt’s twenty-five percent interest for $12,500. Dr. Asanov was instructed by the chancellor to choose either option within thirty days of the date of the order. Hunt argues that, to this day, Dr. Asanov has failed to comply with the order and has failed to either formally transfer an interest in the corporation to her or to purchase her interest for the specified amount. Hunt further argues that the chancellor committed manifest error in making the distribution of BioElectroSpec, because she should have been awarded a distribution of at least fifty percent of the corporation. In making a division of marital property, the chancery court is not required to divide the property equally. Considering the testimony and evidence the chancery court had before it when making the distribution of BioElectroSpec, the court did not err in awarding Hunt twenty-five percent of the corporation. The court considered each of the Ferguson factors in making the equitable distribution of BioElectroSpec. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
