Gordon v. Gordon
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01227-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2012 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce - Equitable distribution of marital property - Non-marital contribution Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-14-2010 Appealed from: Pearl River County Chancery Court Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: EQUITABLE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY Case Number: 2009-0219-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Stephen Gordon |
STEPHEN J. MAGGIO |
|
|
| Appellee: | Pamela Gordon | PRO SE |
|
|
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 distribution of marital property - Non-marital contribution |
| Summary of the Facts: | Pamela Gordon filed for divorce from Stephen Gordon, and the final judgment of divorce was entered by the chancery court in February 2010. The judgment set out visitation and child support for the couple’s one minor child and divided the marital property. No alimony was awarded. Stephen appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Steve argues the chancellor failed to properly consider the non-marital contribution he made to the couple’s property on Idlewild Lane; thus, the chancellor miscalculated the value of the real property subject to equitable distribution. Assets acquired or accumulated during the course of a marriage are subject to equitable division unless it can be shown by proof that such assets are attributable to one of the parties’ separate estates prior to the marriage or outside the marriage. Steve had contributed $70,000 to the property on Idlewild Lane with non-marital funds, and the chancellor took this into account in determining its marital value. The chancellor stated the actual value of the property was $245,000, less debt of $50,000, leaving equity of $195,000. The chancellor then subtracted the $70,000 contributed by Steve from the sale of his pre-marital home. This left a marital equity of $125,000. The chancellor added the marital value of the properties together – $125,000; $28,500; $79,500; and $22,500 – and arrived at a total of $255,500. The chancellor then divided this amount equally and awarded each party $127,750 for purposes of equitable distribution. The chancellor awarded fee simple title to the property on Idlewild Lane to Pam, and Steve was awarded fee simple title to both properties on East Third Street and the lots in the Ponderosa subdivision. The chancellor stated that Pam’s property award was worth $125,000, and Steve’s property award was worth $130,500. Steve’s argument is that the chancellor failed to address the $70,000 in non-marital funds that he contributed to the property on Idlewild Lane. He agrees he and Pam should have each received $127,750 in marital equity, but he claims he should have received an additional $70,000. While the chancellor took the non-marital contribution of $70,000 into account when adding together the marital assets, it was not taken into account in Pam’s award. The chancellor stated that Pam’s award was $125,000. However, Pam was awarded a house with equity of $195,000. The chancellor’s award of the house to Pam with nothing owed to Steve gives Pam a windfall of $70,000. It is apparent that the chancellor’s intent was to divide the property equally in this case, but an equal division was not accomplished by the chancellor’s award. Thus, the case is reversed and remanded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
