Lewis v. Lewis
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01362-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-01362-COA ; 2008-CT-01362-SCT ; 2008-CT-01362-SCT ; 2013-CA-01631-SCT CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 2008-CT-01362-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-08-2009 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Equitable distribution - Marital property Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-11-2008 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: Carter Bise Disposition: GRANTED JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE AND EQUITABLY DIVIDED THE MARITAL ESTATE Case Number: C2402-06-00747(4) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | DRAKE L. LEWIS |
THOMAS WRIGHT TEEL |
|
|
| Appellee: | TONIA D. LEWIS | DEAN HOLLEMAN | ||
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 - Equitable distribution - Marital property |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tonia Lewis was granted a divorce from Drake Lewis on the ground of adultery. The chancery court made an equitable distribution of the marital estate. Drake appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Drake argues that the chancery court erred in its distribution of numerous pieces of property. During the course of their marriage, Tonia and Drake formed and operated together a company called Legacy Holdings. Multiple pieces of property were bought, improved, and either sold or rented by the parties on behalf of Legacy. Drake argues that the court erred in determining the worth of the company, because Legacy is worth almost nothing and holds no property other than some equipment and vehicles. It appears that the chancellor chose to use exhibit four as a valuation of Legacy’s worth, as the value that he assigned to Legacy is the same as the value of Legacy in exhibit four. This decision was in error. First, Tonia admitted that this document, as well as her other submitted documents, was inaccurate in several respects. More troubling is the fact that exhibit four does not indicate, in any way, how the value of Legacy was determined. Of course, this would have been acceptable if Tonia was able to testify as to how the value was calculated. However, Tonia essentially testified that she did not enter the data in question; rather, she simply hit the “print” button on the family’s home computer to obtain exhibit four. For all intents and purposes, the value of Legacy in exhibit four was pulled out of thin air. The valuation in exhibit seven suffers from similar deficiencies. During cross-examination, Tonia admitted that multiple items on exhibit seven were inaccurate. Exhibit one, Tonia’s personal financial statement, was not any better, since Tonia testified that the value of Legacy on her financial statement was simply from the balance sheet that she had printed at the office. On remand, the chancellor should not rely on these documents to value Legacy. Drake also argues that multiple pieces of property were incorrectly considered as marital, rather than non-marital, property. On remand, the chancery court should reexamine the Swamp Road acreage and determine whether it was properly considered as marital property. The chancery court should also reconsider whether the St. Martin acreage is marital property, as Tonia testified that Lot 13, which was traded for the St. Martin acreage, was titled solely in Drake’s name. Tonia also admitted that the St. Martin property is titled solely in Drake’s name. In light of the 1031 exchange, the chancery court should reconsider whether this property is marital. Substantial evidence supports the chancellor’s findings with regard to the remaining property. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
