Allgood v. Allgood
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00858-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00858-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-15-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution - Marital property - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Alimony 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: 04-28-2009 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CHANCERY COURT Judge: EDWARD FENWICK Disposition: FINAL JUDGEMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED Case Number: 2007-0221 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Claudia B. Allgood |
STEPHEN TRAVIS BAILEY |
|
|
| Appellee: | DeForrest R. Allgood | JACKSON M. BROWN | ||
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 - Marital property - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Alimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Claudia Allgood and Deforrest Allgood were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. They left contested issues for the chancery court to resolve, including the issues of property division and alimony. The chancery court identified the separate and marital property of the parties and distributed the couple’s marital assets. Finding the property division sufficient, the chancellor denied Claudia alimony finding none warranted. Claudia appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable distribution Claudia argues that the chancellor erred in classifying a portion of the equity in the couple’s marital home as separate property belonging to Forrest and in failing to classify or divide money held in a campaign account in Forrest’s name. The record shows that the chancellor complied with precedent in classifying the parties’ assets prior to the equitable division of the property and also that he used the Ferguson factors in his equitable division of the assets. An inheritance or gift made to one spouse during the marriage remains the separate property of that spouse. Spouses may convert separate property to marital property through actions of the owning spouse. Spouses possessing separate ownership convert the property into marital property through the following actions: conversion by implied gift, family use, or commingling. A chancellor possesses the discretion to adjust equitably the Ferguson distribution in recognition of a separate contribution of a spouse. Both the evidence in the record and the decision of the chancellor in this case reflect such consideration of the significant separate contribution by Forrest to the marital home and estate. The record shows that the parties agreed that Forrest’s inheritance from his mother’s estate constituted Forrest’s separate property. In 2003, Forrest deposited $92,000 into a joint savings account he held with Claudia. In January 2005, Forrest withdrew $60,000 from that account to make a lump-sum payment on the mortgage on the family home. According to Forrest, all of the funds used in the early payoff of the mortgage originated from his separate inherited funds, despite their being placed in a joint savings account. An additional $22,000 from the sale of Forrest’s parents’ house went directly to Forrest’s individual checking account. He also applied those funds to the mortgage, and he fully satisfied the balance of the mortgage loan. The Allgood family continued living in the home after satisfying the debt of the mortgage. The chancellor properly classified the family home as marital property in his initial classification of property, and the chancellor then properly exercised his discretion in considering Forrest’s significant contribution to the marital estate from his separate funds. The chancellor explained that the equitable division of the parties’ property by the court credited Forrest for that significant separate contribution. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion in the chancellor’s award to Forrest of a larger share of the marital estate in recognition of his significant contribution from his separate property. With regard to the campaign account, Claudia failed to provide supporting authority for this argument or factual support as required by M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6). Forrest testified that none of the money donated to him for campaign purposes has ever been used for anything but his campaigns for office and that Claudia did not help raise this money. Therefore, the record does not contain any evidence that the funds were used for marital or family purpose, and the campaign funds were not calculated as a part of the division of property. Issue 2: Alimony The chancellor found that the award to Claudia, resulting from the equitable division of property, requiring Forrest to pay her $144,875, coupled with her current employment, constituted sufficient means for Claudia. After finding that the equitable division of property and Claudia’s employment at the time of divorce constituted sufficient means, the chancellor found alimony unwarranted. The evidence in the record provides substantial support for the decision of the chancellor. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
