Powell v. Powell
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01041-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01041-COA ; 2010-CT-01041-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-08-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Equitable division of marital estate - Marital assets Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-12-2010 Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: ENTERED A F INAL ORDER OF DIVORCE AND DISTRIBUTED THE MARITAL ESTATE Case Number: 2008-0781 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Sherida C. Powell |
JOHN D. SMALLWOOD
THOMAS T. BUCHANAN |
|
|
| Appellee: | James Samuel Powell | TERRY L. CAVES | ||
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: Adultery - Equitable division of marital estate - Marital assets |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Powell was granted a divorce from Sherida Powell on the ground of uncondoned adultery. The chancery court ordered an equitable division of the marital estate. Sherida appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Sherida argues that the chancery court erred in its determination of which assets were marital and the value of those assets. In dividing a marital estate, a chancery court must determine which assets are marital and which are separate, value the assets, and then equitably divide the same. Marital assets are any and all property acquired or accumulated during the marriage. Sherida first attacks the value that the chancery court assigned to the marital home, which James testified was worth $80,000 before he renovated it prior to his marriage to Sherida. Sherida complains that numerous documents could have been provided to prove the value of the home. While such documents could have been provided, they were not–not by James, and not by Sherida. In the absence of such, there is no error with the chancery court’s valuation of the home. Sherida also complains that the chancery court declined to find that any part of the marital home was marital property. However, the chancery court explicitly found that the marital home was one of the marital assets that would be equitably divided. The fact that the chancery court then concluded that James should have full possession of the home in the distribution does not change the home’s classification as marital property. Sherida next complains that the chancellor erred in “failing to calculate the value” of the future payments on the promissory note from ASAP’s sale. Sherida made no effort to provide a calculation of the future value of the payments. In the absence of any valuation of the ASAP promissory note payments, the chancery court will not be held in error in its valuation of the payments. Sherida also complains that James’s retirement account should have been considered a marital asset. It appears that Sherida’s “value” for the account is simply the percentage that she believes she should receive of each of his monthly disability checks. This did not provide the chancery court with an adequate valuation of the retirement account, and no other evidence was presented by either party that conclusively established the account’s value. Sherida complains that the chancery court’s distribution of the marital property was inequitable. Under the circumstances of this case and applying the Ferguson factors, the chancery court did not err in its distribution. While the distribution in this case may not have been equal, it appears to be equitable. An equitable distribution is all that Sherida is entitled to. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
