Haney v. Haney


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CT-00244-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00244-SCT ; 2002-CA-00244-COA ; 2002-CA-00244-COA

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-21-2005
Opinion Author: Dickinson, J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part and Reversed and Rendered in Part

Additional Case Information: Topic: Divorce - Equitable division of marital assets - Attorneys’ fees
Judge(s) Concurring: Easley and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Diaz and Carlson, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Cortright, S.J.
Concurs in Result Only: 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: 12-05-2001
Appealed from: Union County Chancery Court
Judge: John C. Ross, Jr.
Disposition: REVISED OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ENTERED ORDERING DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS.
Case Number: 97-0276
  Consolidated: Consolidated with 1999-CT-02078-SCT Bob Haney v. Pat Haney; Union Chancery Court; LC Case #: 97-0276; Ruling Date: 12/15/1999; Ruling Judge: John C. Ross, Jr.

Note: The supreme court affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The chancellor’s equal distribution to the parties of marital assets, totaling $28,996.45, which included (1) a 1996 Volvo valued at $14,250; (2) $5,898.45 in a checking account held in Pat’s name; and (3) $8,848 in a checking account held in Bob’s name only, is affirmed. This results in a distribution to each party of $14,498.22. See original COA opinion at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO13532.pdf

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Bob Haney




TIMOTHY E. ERVIN



 

Appellee: Pat (Robertson) Haney ROBERT M. CARTER, THAD J. MUELLER  

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 - Equitable division of marital assets - Attorneys’ fees

Summary of the Facts: Bob and Pat Haney were granted a divorce. The chancellor’s division of marital assets was reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals. On remand, the chancellor entered another judgment and was again reversed and rendered in part and remanded in part by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: In the first Haney case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the chancellor did not actually intend the award to Pat to be an equitable division of marital assets. On remand, the chancellor evaluated the marital versus non-marital assets and split the marital assets down the middle, resulting in an award to Pat of $104,974.77, and only then did he make any reference to lump sum alimony. The chancellor clearly intended the award to Pat to be an equitable distribution of marital assets. Lump sum alimony is a tool to assist a chancellor in transferring assets to a spouse who has no legal title, but who contributed to the accumulation of property in the marriage. In the first Haney case, the Court of Appeals rejected the chancellor’s evaluation using the Ferguson factors and remanded for an evaluation using the Cheatham factors. However, the Cheatham factors are really nothing more than an earlier version of the Ferguson factors, and both are used for the same purpose. There is no Ferguson factor which would be inappropriate in evaluating lump sum alimony. In determining a spouse’s contribution which justifies equitable distribution, the court looks not only at cash contributions and assistance in the spouse’s workplace or business, but also to domestic work in the home such as caring for children, cooking meals, cleaning house, and washing and ironing clothes. There is no case, however, which authorizes the award of lump sum alimony or an equitable distribution of non-marital assets based upon nothing more than one spouse’s need and the other’s ability to pay. The parties in this case contest an equal division of $221,250 growth in Bob’s separate investments. Bob had the investment account prior to the marriage, and the growth of that account was unrelated to any effort or contribution from Pat. There is no indication that Bob disposed of any marital assets. Although Pat had a substantial separate estate, her deficit each month of approximately $1,500 would deplete her assets in eight to ten years. Bob faces no similar threat. Throughout their marriage Pat and Bob maintained separate residences and separate businesses. Their marriage lasted only seventeen months. No equitable distribution of other assets can be justified from the record. An award of attorney’s fees is nothing more than equitable distribution of a different flavor. Such awards are justified where the equities suggest one party should assist the other, and the other party is unable to pay. The Court of Appeals properly reversed the chancellor’s award of attorney’s fees.


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