Kalman v. Kalman


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-01024-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-30-2004
Opinion Author: Lee, P.J.
Holding: Reversed and remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Modification of divorce judgment - Marital assets - Contempt - UCCR 8.05
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-14-2003
Appealed from: Simpson County Chancery Court
Judge: J. Larry Buffington
Disposition: MOTION FOR ALIMONY AND CONTEMPT DENIED
Case Number: 97-0448

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Patricia (McClendon) Kalman




GREGORY LIVINGSTON HARPER



 

Appellee: Zoltan Kalman W. TERRELL STUBB  

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: Modification of divorce judgment - Marital assets - Contempt - UCCR 8.05

Summary of the Facts: Immediately after Patricia and Zoltan Kalman were married in 1990, Patricia and the couple’s three children left Zoltan in Ohio and joined Patricia's parents in Mississippi. In September of 1997, Zoltan won $2,600,000 in the Ohio state lottery. In October of 1997, Zoltan and Patricia filed a joint complaint for divorce. Zoltan did not disclose his winnings to the court nor to Patricia. After the divorce was granted, Patricia learned about the winnings. She filed a motion to modify the final judgment of divorce and for contempt. The court ordered Zoltan to pay child support in the amount of $917 per month, half of the children's medical and college expenses, and $31,000 in past-due child support. Patricia's motions for contempt and alimony were denied. Patricia appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Marital assets Patricia argues that the court erred in determining that the lottery proceeds were not marital property, and therefore not subject to equitable distribution. Assets acquired or accumulated during the course of the marriage are marital assets and are subject to an equitable distribution by the chancellor. Here, the chancellor did not address whether the proceeds of the lottery were, in fact, marital property. Although Patricia and Zoltan lived at different locations, Patricia arguably tended to the needs of the family in rearing the children. If the chancellor had determined that the lottery winnings were marital property, Patricia has a colorable argument entitling her to equitable distribution of the winnings. Therefore, the case is remanded for a determination as to whether the lottery ticket, which was acquired during the marriage, constitutes marital property. Issue 2: Contempt Patricia argues that Zoltan should be held in contempt for his failure to disclose his lottery winnings to the court. Uniform Chancery Court Rule 8.05 requires a detailed and truthful disclosure of both parties' finances. Under the plain language of this rule, the 8.05 disclosure is mandatory unless excused by order of the court for good cause. Failure to observe this rule, without just cause, shall constitute contempt of court. Neither Zoltan nor Patricia complied with this rule. The fact that Zoltan elected not to secure representation in the divorce is of little import, for rule 8.05 does not except pro se litigants from compliance. This issue is remanded for determination in light of rule 8.05.


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