Striebeck v. Striebeck


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CA-01185-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-26-2008
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Equitable distribution of marital property - Reimbursement of alimony
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): King, C.J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-25-2007
Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
Judge: Dorothy W. Colom
Disposition: AWARD OF $75,000 TO WIFE IN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION. NO ALIMONY WARRANTED.
Case Number: 200425
  Consolidated: CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 2004-CA-00507-COA WILLIAM R. STRIEBECK v. RUTH ANN BRENT PROVENZA STRIEBECK

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: WILLIAM RAY STRIEBECK




WILLARD L. MCILWAIN



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: RUTH ANN BRENT PROVENZA STRIEBECK LUTHER PUTNAM CRULL  
    Appellee #2:  

    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: Equitable distribution of marital property - Reimbursement of alimony

    Summary of the Facts: William Striebeck and Ruth Ann Provenza Striebeck were granted a divorce in 2003. Both parties appealed the monetary aspects of the judgment. The provisions of the first chancery court order required Bill to pay Ruth Ann $34,055 in equitable distribution for her half of the equity in the marital home, and $750 per month in periodic alimony. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions that the chancery court should valuate Ruth Ann’s interest in a family trust/partnership and determine whether this interest was marital or non-marital property; valuate the amount of attorney’s fees earned by Bill in several cases referred to as “the Bridge Matter” and determine if these were marital or non-marital assets; analyze the marital assets and equitably divide them; and after equitable distribution and taking into account the financial needs of each party, determine the amount, if any, of permanent alimony warranted. On remand, the chancellor placed a current value of $611,087.21 on Ruth Ann’s interest in the family trust/partnership and classified this property as non-marital. The chancellor calculated the amount of attorney’s fees earned by Bill in the Bridge Matter to be $360,616.41 and classified this property as marital. The chancellor awarded Ruth Ann $75,000 of the $360,616.41 in equitable distribution of the marital estate. The chancellor also found that no alimony was warranted in light of the equitable division of the marital estate, Ruth Ann’s earning ability, and Ruth Ann’s non-marital property, as well as Bill’s previous payment to Ruth Ann of $34,055 for her share of the equity in the marital home. Bill appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Equitable distribution Bill argues that because the parties separated in 2000, and Ruth Ann’s contribution to his law practice occurred in the early years of the marriage before he entered into the contracts yielding the Bridge Matter attorney’s fees, it was inequitable to distribute any part of them to Ruth Ann. However, there is no doubt that Bill performed the legal work earning the attorney’s fees during the time of the marriage. There is no doubt that the fees from the Bridge Matter were marital property, and Ruth Ann materially assisted Bill in building his practice earlier in the marriage. The record shows that there was no property division or temporary support order entered prior to Bill receiving the attorney’s fees. Further, pursuant to the division of the Bridge Matter fees, the chancellor awarded Bill $288,616 – nearly five times that awarded to Ruth Ann. Equitable distribution does not require an equality in the separate estates. Based on this record, there is no abuse of discretion. Issue 2: Reimbursement of alimony On remand, Bill filed a motion with the chancery court for restitution of the alimony he had paid. The chancellor specifically found that Bill should be credited with the amount of alimony he paid pursuant to the initial divorce decree when he paid the $75,000 in equitable distribution to Ruth Ann. Thus, Bill has actually prevailed on the issue of the periodic alimony he paid. In order to appeal an issue, a party must have been aggrieved by the judgment. As such, Bill lacks standing to assert this issue.


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