Dalton v. Dalton


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-CT-00824-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2001-CT-00824-SCT ; 2001-CA-00824-COA

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-03-2004
Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Contempt - Modification of property settlement agreement
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-14-2001
Appealed from: Covington County Chancery Court
Judge: J. Larry Buffington
Disposition: Entered an order extending the time for compliance with the parties' property settlement agreement by 14 days and other relief for Appellee.
Case Number: 99-265

Note: Affirmed the

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Larry Gene Dalton




DAVID SHOEMAKE



 

Appellee: Linda Ann Dalton ALEITA M. SULLIVAN  

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: Contempt - Modification of property settlement agreement

Summary of the Facts: Linda Dalton and Larry Dalton were granted an irreconcilable differences divorce. The parties executed a property settlement agreement which was incorporated into the final divorce decree. The agreement required that certain real estate transactions be completed within 60 days from the date the property was appraised. A dispute between the parties prevented them from completing the transactions within the allotted time, and both parties filed motions for contempt. The court entered an order extending the time for compliance with the agreement by 14 days and directing payment of certain claims raised by Linda in her contempt complaint. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion and that the record supported that a good faith misunderstanding existed between the parties as to the effect of the property settlement agreement. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Although a property settlement is not subject to modification, where ambiguities may be found, the agreement should be construed much as is done in the case of a contract, with the court seeking to gather the intent of the parties and render its clauses harmonious in the light of that intent. Here, the chancellor found that both parties had a good faith misunderstanding of the manner in which the terms of the property settlement agreement were to be carried out. There was no abuse of discretion in molding the agreement to conform to the intent of the parties.


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