Barnes v. Barnes


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-01985-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-16-2011
Opinion Author: Irving, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce - Property settlement agreement - Retirement-account provision
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-17-2009
Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court
Judge: Carter Bise
Disposition: ISSUED ORDER CLARIFYING JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE
Case Number: C2402-04-323(4)
  Consolidated: Consolidated with 2009-CA-01056-COA Lionel Barnes, Sr. v. Betty R. Holden Barnes; Harrison Chancery Court 2nd District; LC Case #: C2402-04-323(4); Ruling Date: 06/18/2004; Ruling Judge: Carter Bise

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Lionel Barnes, Sr.




WILLIAM CARL MILLER



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: Betty R. Holden Barnes DAVID C. MORRISON WILLIAM BARDWELL  

    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 - Property settlement agreement - Retirement-account provision

    Summary of the Facts: Lionel Barnes Sr. and Betty Holden Barnes entered into a property settlement agreement as part of their second divorce. The property-settlement agreement states that Betty and Lionel are each entitled to fifty percent of each other’s retirement accounts as of the time of their divorce. The provision did not provide any further guidance as to what periods of Lionel’s accrual of retirement benefits were subject to division. Betty filed a petition to clarify which portion of Lionel’s retirement benefits would be affected by the property agreement. The chancellor found that Betty is entitled to half of the benefits that accrued from the time of Lionel’s entrance into the military in August 1976 until the parties’ 2004 divorce, or 46.26% of his retirement benefits. Lionel appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: The agreement at issue here did not limit the time frame of the retirement-account provision in any way. In its entirety, the retirement provision reads: “Husband and Wife agree that both are entitled to 50% of the other’s retirement as of the date of divorce. Husband shall maintain the Survivor’s Benefit Plan with Wife as beneficiary. Wife shall reimburse Husband for the cost of the Survivor’s Benefit Plan. Wife shall maintain the Survivor’s Benefit Plan with Husband as beneficiary. Husband shall reimburse Wife the cost of the Survivor’s Benefit Plan.” Furthermore, the parties’ 1998 divorce did not make any provision regarding whether either party would be entitled to the other’s retirement benefits. The parties were first married in July 1976, and Lionel began working for the military in August 1976. The parties’ second divorce occurred in June 2004. In short, Lionel accrued 5 months of retirement benefits in 1976 and 6 months of benefits in 2004. Between 1976 and 2004, Lionel worked for 324 months. Combined, that would mean that Lionel accrued benefits for 335 months; with time taken into account for partial months, there were 334 total months of service at the time of the parties’ 2004 divorce. The chancellor then divided that number by 361, which was the total number of months that Lionel served, and halved the result to arrive at 46.26%, which was the percentage of Lionel’s retirement benefits that the chancellor concluded that Betty was entitled to receive. Given the broad, unlimited language of the divorce agreement, the chancery court did not err in its judgment awarding Betty 46.26% of Lionel’s retirement benefits.


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