Strong v. Strong


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CA-01987-COA
Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01987-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-29-2008
Opinion Author: KING, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Remanded in Part

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Temporary child support arrearage - Equitable distribution
Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., 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: 10-17-2006
Appealed from: Hancock County Chancery Court
Judge: Margaret Alfonso
Disposition: FINAL DIVORCE DECREE ENTERED DIVIDING MARITAL ASSETS AND AWARDING TEMPORARY CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE
Case Number: C2301-04-598(2)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: JAMES STRONG




CLEMENT S. BENVENUTTI



 

Appellee: GRETCHEN STRONG KELLY MICHAEL RAYBURN  

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 - Temporary child support arrearage - Equitable distribution

Summary of the Facts: James and Gretchen Strong were granted a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. The chancellor classified the marital home as marital property and ordered its sale. The net proceeds from the home were to be equally divided between the parties, after deductions were made for James’s child support arrearage. The chancellor did not classify or equitably divide the $9,696.30 in insurance proceeds held in a CD by Gretchen’s mother. James appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Temporary child support arrearage James argues that the chancellor erred when she ordered him to pay temporary child support for the twelve months predating the temporary support order, because the chancellor was without authority to grant this relief. Two statutes provide for the ordering of child support up to one year prior to the commencement of an action seeking such relief, namely section 93-11-65(1)(d) and section 93-9-11. In addition, the matter was tried with the consent of the parties. The parties signed an agreed order that expressly placed the matter of temporary child support arrearage before the chancellor. In addition, evidence was presented at trial without objection as to what James had paid Gretchen in child support following the separation. Therefore, the chancellor did not abuse her discretion when she required James to pay for twelve months of child support prior to the entry of the order granting temporary child support. Issue 2: Equitable distribution James argues that the chancellor erred when she failed to account for the $9,696.30 in insurance proceeds Gretchen had placed in a CD in her mother’s name. The chancellor’s order followed the proper steps for equitable distribution for each contested piece of property with the one exception of the insurance proceeds. However, in her discussion of the classification of the contested pieces of property, the chancellor merely stated that the insurance proceeds would be discussed later in the order. The only other mention of insurance proceeds was when the chancellor determined that they were beyond her reach since they were in a CD in Gretchen’s mother’s name. The mere fact that the insurance proceeds were placed beyond the reach of the court by Gretchen did not preclude the chancellor’s ability to offset those proceeds from Gretchen’s portion of the equitable distribution. There was marital property that could be used to offset the insurance proceeds in the event the insurance proceeds were determined to be marital property. Therefore, the chancellor erred when she failed to classify the insurance proceeds as marital or separate property.


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