In re Dissolution of Marriage of Wood v. Wood
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00679-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-27-2010 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contempt - Modification of property settlement agreement - Impossibility of performance - Date of valuation Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-25-2009 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Dorothy W. Colom Disposition: The chancellor granted the divorce and incorporated an an "Agreement Concerning the Custody, Support of and Visitation with Minor Children and Settlement of Property Rights Made in Contemplation of Obtaining a Divorce on the Ground of Irreconcilable Differences" into the final judgment. Melissa later filed a motion for contempt, because Kelly had not paid her $203,200 as required in the Agreement. The chancellor found in favor of Kelly. Case Number: 2008-0297-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | In The Matter of The Dissolution of the Marriage of Kelly Drew Wood, Husband, and Melissa Weeks Wood, Wife: Melissa Weeks Wood |
KRISTEN WOOD WILLIAMS, MARC D. AMOS |
|
|
| Appellee: | Kelly Drew Wood | TIMOTHY C. HUDSON | ||
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: | Contempt - Modification of property settlement agreement - Impossibility of performance - Date of valuation |
| Summary of the Facts: | Melissa and Kelly Wood filed a joint bill for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. They executed an “Agreement Concerning the Custody, Support of and Visitation with Minor Children and Settlement of Property Rights Made in Contemplation of Obtaining a Divorce on the Ground of Irreconcilable Differences.” The chancellor granted the divorce and incorporated the Agreement into the final judgment. Melissa later filed a motion for contempt, because Kelly had not paid her $203,200 as required in the Agreement. The chancellor found in favor of Kelly, and Melissa appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Modification of agreement A property settlement agreement is no different from any other contract. Where terms of a contract are ambiguous, the contract will be interpreted in a reasonable manner. The chancellor found that the contract was ambiguous with respect to the parties’ intent regarding how the account should be divided. Thus, the chancellor found that, at the time they entered into the Agreement, Melissa and Kelly intended that, regardless of the account’s value, Melissa would receive 54% of the account’s balance, and Kelly would retain 46%, instead of the specific dollar amounts stated in the Agreement. The chancellor did not err in reaching this conclusion. The specific dollar amounts given in the Agreement were expressly based on an estimate of the account’s balance. But that estimate turned out to be incorrect at the time of the divorce, when the Agreement became effective. The Agreement thus indicates that, by incorporating an estimate into the Agreement and basing their respective shares of the account on that estimate, Kelly and Melissa essentially intended to divide the account according to an indefinite and fluctuating account balance. As such, the Agreement did not clearly specify the parties’ intentions with respect to the distribution of the account, so it was ambiguous. The chancellor’s conclusion was based on substantial evidence. Alternatively, to the extent that the parties did in fact intend to divide the account according to the specific dollar amounts, the incorrect estimate of the account’s balance rendered performance of the contract impossible, such that the chancellor had little choice but to apply the percentages. There are certain classes of events the occurring of which are said to excuse from performance of the contract because they are not within the contract, such as the destruction, from no default of either party, of the specific thing, the continued existence of which is essential to the performance of the contract. Based on the total estimated balance of the account ($376,000), Melissa receiving $203,200 and Kelly receiving $172,800 was reasonably within the contemplation of both parties when they entered into the contract. However, as Kelly stated at the contempt hearing, it was impossible for Melissa to receive $203,200 and for Kelly to receive $172,800 as stated in the agreement, because there was not enough money to accomplish this. The global economic crisis and the attendant stock market decline had caused the destruction, from no default of either party, of the total estimated balance of the account of $376,000, the continued existence of which was essential to the performance of the contract by both parties. A property settlement agreement may be reformed on the basis of impossibility of performance. Issue 2: Date of valuation When equitably dividing marital property upon divorce, the date of valuation is necessarily within the discretion of the chancellor. The chancellor did not abuse her discretion in valuing the account as of April 1, 2009. The chancellor’s decision to value the account as of April 1, 2009, was reasonable and was founded upon concerns for justice and equity. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
