Berryman v. Berryman


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CT-01965-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01965-SCT ; 2003-CA-01965-COA

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-30-2005
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable division of marital property
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J., and Graves, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS
Writ of Certiorari: Granted
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-02-2003
Appealed from: Tate County Chancery Court
Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr.
Disposition: JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED DIVIDING MARITAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.
Case Number: 02-07-270 (ML)

Note: The supreme court affirmed that the trial court only dividied marital property. See original COA opinion at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/OPINIONS/CO19921.PDF

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Perry Leon Berryman




MARY LYNN DAMARE’



 

Appellee: Katherine Lynn (Hibbett)(Snyder) Berryman H. R. GARNER  

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 division of marital property

Summary of the Facts: Perry and Katherine Berryman were granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The chancellor divided the marital property, but declined to award alimony or attorney's fees to either party. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Perry argues that the Court of Appeals opinion was incorrect as to the facts stated in the opinion. He also argues that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the chancellor’s decision as it is not an equitable division of the marital property. In rendering its decision, the Court of Appeals without question misstated the chancellor’s decision regarding which spouse would be responsible for the indebtedness on a twenty-acre tract of land and the amount of the monthly mortgage payment. The Court of Appeals correctly stated that the chancellor awarded the twenty acres to the wife, but the Court of Appeals’ misstatement occurred in saying that the wife was to maintain the payments of $740 per month on the land. In fact, the payments were $504.41 per month. However, that fact does not affect the decision to affirm the chancellor’s ruling. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the chancellor erred in awarding commingled marital property and assets solely to the wife. The Court of Appeals applied the correct legal analysis in rendering its decision. The Court of Appeals’ opinion focused on whether the chancellor’s decision to award the wife the equity in the marital home was equitable. The Court of Appeals held that chancellor had not abused his discretion in awarding the wife the equity in the marital home. The chancellor’s division of the marital property and assets was equitable.


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