Curry v. Curry
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00379-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-12-2010 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution - Equity in marital home - Loss in retirement income Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-12-2008 Appealed from: PONTOTOC COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: Talmadge Littlejohn Disposition: FINAL DECREE OF DIVORCE ENTERED Case Number: 2006-0354-58-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Linda Curry |
PAUL M. MOORE JR., AMY STOKES HARRIS, CHRISTE’ RHEA HARRIS-LEECH |
|
|
| Appellee: | Charles Curry | J. MARK SHELTON | ||
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 - Equitable distribution - Equity in marital home - Loss in retirement income |
| Summary of the Facts: | Linda Curry and Charles Curry were granted a divorce for irreconcilable differences. Charles and Linda agreed that certain articles of property constituted separate, non-marital property not subject to an equitable division. However, they failed to reach an agreement on the division of certain real and personal property, which they submitted to the chancellor for equitable division. The chancellor divided the parties’ personal property, the marital home, and two parcels of land. In all, Charles received approximately $189,200 in personal and real property attributable to the marriage, and Linda received approximately $183,950 in personal and real property from the marriage. Both Linda and Charles also received their own separate, non-marital property, which when added to the property received in the chancellor’s distribution amounted to approximately $577,950 for Linda and $207,700 for Charles. Linda appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Linda argues that the chancellor erred in his calculation of the amount of money Charles should receive from the equity in the marital home. She also argues that the chancellor’s decision to award Charles the real property the couple owned in Pontotoc, valued at approximately $75,000, constituted an arbitrary decision. With regard to the home, Linda held the title to the property and owned it prior to the marriage. However, the parties stipulated that the property was subject to equitable division because the couple had lived in the home throughout the marriage. According to testimony presented at trial, the home’s value was $250,000. At some point in the marriage, Linda mortgaged the home for $100,000 in order to pay personal tax debts, leaving $150,000 in equity in the home. According to Linda, the chancellor intended for Charles to receive twenty percent of the equity in the home, or $30,000, and the Court should reverse the chancellor’s judgment and reduce the amount of the award to $30,000, which she claims the chancellor clearly intended to do. Despite Linda’s assertions that the chancellor intended to award Charles twenty percent of the equity, and not $50,000, the chancellor’s bench opinion and judgment are clear on this point when read in context. Clearly, the chancellor intended for the mortgage on the property to affect only the portion of the property awarded to Linda, because Linda alone encumbered the property. The chancellor’s final order in this case is more than reasonably clear. The chancellor simply stated that Charles should receive $50,000 from the equity in the marital home. With regard to the rental property, the property, valued at $75,000, generates approximately $550 per month in rental income. According to Linda, the chancellor awarded the property to Charles for the sole purpose of offsetting a reduction in retirement payments Charles took in order to list Linda as a beneficiary should he predecease her. Linda claims that Charles offered no proof of the actual loss in retirement income. Despite Linda’s assertion that Charles presented no proof of the actual reduction he took in his retirement benefit as a result of electing the joint-pension option, Charles presented the calculation worksheets he received from the pension fund as an exhibit at trial. According to the calculation worksheets, Charles’s pension amount was $2,562.82 per month. Under the “Early Retirement with 66 2/3% Joint Option with Pop-Up” option, which Charles elected, he receives $2,314.23 per month. If Charles predeceases Linda, she will receive 66 2/3% of Charles’s monthly pension payment, or $1,542.80. If Linda predeceases Charles, Charles’s pension payments “pop-up” to his original pension amount of $2,562.82. Therefore, under the retirement option Charles elected, he took a reduction of $248.59 per month. Although the chancellor incorrectly stated that Charles presented no evidence showing the differences in the various payment options available to Charles upon retirement, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the chancellor’s judgment. The chancellor noted in his opinion that the value of the Highway 9 property, including rental income from the property, should compensate Charles for the reduction in his retirement payments. The chancellor does not indicate in his opinion that offsetting the reduction in retirement payments provided the sole basis for his decision to divide the property in that manner. The chancellor achieved an equitable division of the marital property. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
