Sandoval v. Sandoval
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01777-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01777-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Adultery - Equitable distribution of marital assets Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Russell, J., specially concurs without separate written opinion Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-11-2010 Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court Judge: Billy G. Bridges Disposition: GRANTED DIVORCE, AWARDED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF CHILDREN TO WIFE, AND DIVIDED MARITAL PROPERTY Case Number: 09-0457-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Alfredo Sandoval |
MICHAEL DUANE MITCHELL, JEANNENE PACIFIC |
|
|
| Appellee: | Kimberly Sandoval | MARGARET WILLIAMS HOLMES | ||
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 distribution of marital assets |
| Summary of the Facts: | Alfredo Sandoval and Kimberly Sandoval were granted a divorce on the ground of adultery. The chancery court awarded Kimberly physical custody of the couple’s three children and divided the couple’s marital assets. Alfredo appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The chancery court determined that Kimberly was entitled to “an equitable distribution of the . . . increase in value of [all of] the businesses . . . due to [Alfredo’s] active participation” in the businesses. In its application of the active/passive test, the chancery court erred in classifying the appreciation in value of the businesses in Forest as a marital asset. It is undisputed that neither Alfredo nor Kimberly worked at the Forest businesses. Alfredo only collected a commission check from his business partner. Alfredo’s business partner controlled the Forest businesses. Neither Kimberly nor Alfredo contributed to the appreciation in value of those businesses. As such, the appreciation of those businesses was passive and should not have been considered marital property. Even though the Laurel and Ellisville businesses were incorporated prior to Alfredo’s marriage to Kimberly, the chancery court’s classification of the appreciation of those businesses as marital property was proper. Kimberly testified that she worked in both of these businesses throughout her marriage to Alfredo. Even though there was conflicting testimony about the length of time that Kimberly had worked at the Laurel and Ellisville businesses, the appreciation of the businesses is still marital property because Alfredo actively participated in making the businesses profitable. Alfredo argues that the chancery court erred in considering the total current value of the businesses when dividing the marital assets. Only active appreciation that occurred during the course of the marriage is subject to equitable division. Although Alfredo and Kimberly dated for many years before getting married, they were married only three years. Therefore, only the active appreciation of the Laurel and Ellisville businesses, which occurred during the course of Alfredo and Kimberly’s three-year marriage, is marital property. The case is remanded for a re-classification of these assets and a re-distribution of the marital assets. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
