Cotton v. Cotton
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-00626-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-00626-COA ; 2008-CT-00626-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-26-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Annulment - Equitable division - Ferguson factors Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Griffis, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-21-2008 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Vicki Cobb Disposition: GRANTED ANNULMENT AND DISTRIBUTED ASSETS Case Number: 05-3-396(VC) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | EDDIE J. COTTON |
ROSS R. BARNETT, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | FANNIE M. COTTON | LESLIE B. SHUMAKE, JR. | ||
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: | Annulment - Equitable division - Ferguson factors |
| Summary of the Facts: | Fannie Cotton filed for a divorce from Eddie Cotton based on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Eddie counterclaimed for an annulment, alleging that Fannie had never obtained a divorce from her first husband before she married Eddie. The chancellor ruled that Fannie’s bigamy rendered the marriage void and granted an annulment. The chancellor further held that Fannie’s economic contributions to the purported marriage over the past thirty-seven years entitled her to an equitable distribution of the assets accumulated by the parties during that time. Eddie appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable division Eddie argues that Mississippi law requires a party to a void marriage must have entered into that marriage in good faith before the chancellor may award any form of equitable relief. Where parties live together without benefit of marriage and where, through their joint efforts, accumulate real property or personal property, or both, a party having no legal title nevertheless acquires rights to an equitable share enforceable at law. Such a remedy is only available where the couples had either been married or contended to have married. There is substantial evidence in the record that Fannie and Eddie lived together for much of their thirty-seven years of apparent marriage. They secured a marriage license, undertook a marriage ceremony before a minister, and held themselves out to the community as man and wife. Eddie and Fannie raised four children over the course of their void marriage. It also appears beyond dispute that the record contains substantial evidence that Fannie contributed to the accumulation of much of the couple’s real and personal property. Testimony also indicated that Fannie was the primary caregiver for the children. Because good faith is not required under Mississippi law to support an equitable distribution of property acquired during a void marriage, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Ferguson factors Eddie argues that the chancellor erred in failing to consider the Ferguson guidelines in effecting an equitable division of the property. The chancellor, in her written opinion, made no express mention of Ferguson or its specific factors. Strictly speaking, however, Ferguson on its own terms is applicable only where the chancellor addresses the equitable division of marital property incident to a divorce. Here, the record shows that the chancellor did not err in effecting the equitable division. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
