Jenkins v. Jenkins


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-01914-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-29-2011
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Credit card debt - Interest in business - Right to execute judgment - Section 11-5-81
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-20-2009
Appealed from: Madison County Chancery Court
Judge: Cynthia Brewer
Disposition: Judgment of Divorce, Award of Custody to the Father, and Equitable Distribution of a Jointly Owned Business and Marital Debt
Case Number: 2006-0410

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Kathryn Martello Jenkins




MARK W. PREWITT



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Johnny M. Jenkins JOHN W. CHRISTOPHER  

    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 - Credit card debt - Interest in business - Right to execute judgment - Section 11-5-81

    Summary of the Facts: Johnny Jenkins and Kathryn Jenkins agreed to a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. Johnny and Kathryn submitted the following contested issues to the chancellor: child custody, child support, and equitable distribution of their marital assets and marital debt. The chancellor ultimately awarded physical custody of the children to Johnny, subject to Kathryn’s visitation rights. The chancellor also ordered Kathryn to pay Johnny $326 each month in child support. The chancellor also awarded Kathryn approximately $70,000 from the division of the equity in the marital home. As for Kathryn and Johnny’s business, KMJ, Inc. d/b/a Automuff Discount Muffler, the chancellor found that, including KMJ’s Jackson real estate, KMJ had an appraised value of $251,000. The chancellor found that Kathryn had dissipated $50,000 in marital assets through gambling losses. Although the chancellor did not specifically state that Kathryn’s share of KMJ was $165,000, the chancellor held that Kathryn’s dissipation of assets would be offset against Kathryn’s share of KMJ. The chancellor then awarded Kathryn a judgment against Johnny in the amount of $115,000 – representing Kathryn’s share of KMJ. The chancellor ordered Johnny to pay Kathryn a minimum of $500 per month until the entire amount is paid in full. Kathryn appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Credit card debt The chancellor held that Kathryn would be solely responsible for paying the entire $7,312 balance of a Visa credit card. Kathryn and Johnny disagreed that the credit-card debt was a marital debt. According to Johnny, he did not know that Kathryn had obtained the credit card. Johnny testified that he did not agree to be personally liable for the credit card. Kathryn did not submit any statements or other documentary evidence to demonstrate that the credit-card debt was incurred for expenses that benefitted the marriage. Aside from Kathryn’s testimony that Johnny had purchased a ring with the credit card, there was absolutely no evidence regarding what else was purchased with the credit card. Expenses incurred for the family, or due to the actions of a family member, are marital debt. The chancellor’s decision that Kathryn would be solely responsible for the credit-card debt could have been based on the obvious favorable treatment that Kathryn received during the chancellor’s division of KMJ. Considering the chancellor’s equitable distribution as a whole, the chancellor acted within her discretion when she held that Kathryn was solely responsible for the $7,312 Visa credit-card debt. Issue 2: Interest in business Kathryn argues that the chancellor abused her discretion when she prohibited Kathryn from collecting on the $115,000 judgment, which represents Kathryn’s equitable interest in KMJ. Section 11-5-81 provides that whenever the court shall render an order, judgment, or decree for the payment of money against any other party litigant therein, a compliance with such order, judgment or decree may be enforced by process of fieri facias or garnishment. Thus, the portion of the chancellor’s order that prohibited Kathryn’s right to execute the judgment awarded by the chancellor operates as a violation of Kathryn’s rights as set forth in section 11-5-81. However, there is no restriction on the chancellor’s authority to establish a schedule of payments, and Johnny shall not be held in contempt as long as he obeys the chancellor’s order.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court