Jones v. Jones
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-02015-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-18-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Failure to cite authority - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Equitable distribution Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-08-2009 Appealed from: Lincoln County Chancery Court Judge: Ed Patten Disposition: GRANTED DIVORCE AND DISTRIBUTED MARITAL ASSETS NOT ALREADY DIVIDED BY PARTIES’ AGREEMENT Case Number: 2008-0261 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Theresia Walls Jones |
JOSEPH A. FERNALD JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Johnny Neal Jones | DAVID LEE BREWER | ||
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 - Failure to cite authority - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Equitable distribution |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny Jones and Theresia Jones agreed to a divorce based on irreconcilable differences. Although they had stipulated to the distribution of a number of their assets, they requested that the chancery court distribute the marital assets that they were not able to agree upon. The chancellor concluded that approximately $91,000 in marital assets were subject to equitable distribution. The chancellor, therefore, determined that Theresia and Johnny should each receive $45,500 in marital assets. Although the marital home had a stipulated value of approximately $134,650, the chancellor found that, due to the relatively short duration of the marriage, only the appreciation in the home’s value from the beginning of the marriage should be subject to equitable distribution. The marital home had appreciated by approximately $34,650 during the marriage. The chancellor awarded Theresia the marital home and all of the equity in it. Combining the $11,855 in stipulated personal property and the $34,650 equity in the marital home, the chancellor concluded that Theresia received more than her $45,500 share of the marital assets. Consequently, the chancellor concluded that Theresia should pay Johnny $996 to cover the difference. As for the marital debt, the chancellor found that there was approximately $16,850 in marital debt that should be divided between Theresia and Johnny. The chancellor concluded that each party should be responsible for $8,425 of the marital debt. The chancellor held that Theresia would be directly responsible for $3,467.50 of the debt, and he further ordered that Theresia was to pay Johnny $4,957.50 to cover the remaining portion of her share of the marital debt. The total sum that Theresia was to pay Johnny was $5,953, representing $4,957 plus $996. Theresia appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Because Theresia failed to cite any authority to support her contentions on appeal, her assertions are procedurally barred under M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6). Theresia argues that the chancellor should have apportioned the remaining debt on the 2007 Nissan Altima she received in the chancellor’s equitable distribution. At the time of the chancellor’s equitable distribution, the stipulated value of the Altima was $19,350. There was $14,500 remaining on the Altima note, with equity of $4,850. Theresia also claims that she did not want the Altima. It was within the chancellor’s discretion to conclude that it was marital property. Furthermore, it was also within the chancellor’s discretion to forego apportioning part of the debt on the Altima to Johnny. Theresia actually received a greater share of the marital assets than Johnny received. The chancellor also apportioned the debt in an equitable manner. Theresia also argues that the chancellor erred when he awarded a flatbed trailer valued at approximately $900 to Johnny. According to Theresia, the evidence indicated that Johnny recognized that her father had a proprietary interest in the trailer. There is no merit to Theresia’s claim. It is true that Theresia testified that the sixteen-foot, dual-axle trailer belonged to her father. It is also true that Johnny testified that Theresia could have the trailer. However, Johnny also testified that Theresia’s father had given the used trailer to them as a gift, and they had used the trailer during their marriage. The chancellor ultimately held that there is no credible evidence that the trailer was not a gift. It was certainly within the chancellor’s discretion to reach that conclusion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
