Studdard v. Studdard
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01299-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-16-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution of marital assets Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-12-2003 Appealed from: Lowndes County Chancery Court Judge: Robert L. Lancaster Disposition: DIVORCE GRANTED ON THE GROUNDS OF IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES, PHYSICAL AND LEGAL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN AWARDED TO APPELLANT, APPELLEE ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $550 PER MONTH AND GRANTED REASONABLE VISITATION, AND MARITAL ESTATE EQUITABLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES Case Number: 2001-0362 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ginger D. Studdard |
H. J. DAVIDSON |
||
| Appellee: | Dana J. Studdard | THOMAS G. WALLACE |
|
|
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: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution of marital assets |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dana and Ginger Studdard were divorced on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, and Ginger was awarded legal and physical custody of the parties’ two minor children. The chancellor divided and distributed the marital assets. Ginger appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ginger argues that the chancellor failed to equitably divide the marital estate because he refused to accept Ginger's testimony regarding the value of several items of the marital estate. In making his division of the marital estate, the chancellor relied essentially on the values set forth by the parties in their financial disclosure statement. He also took into consideration the parties' testimony regarding the values which each of them placed on the marital assets. The chancellor then considered the Ferguson factors before making a division of the estate. The chancellor also took into consideration the fact that a third party would be affected by his decision regarding the disposition of the land, that Ginger had already taken a substantial number of household goods from the home, that Dana had fully paid the joint marital debt existing at the time of the parties’ separation, and that other expenses and debt incurred by Ginger after the separation were due to a number of major purchases of goods that she had made after the separation of the parties and had in her possession at the time of trial. The chancellor also noted that both parties were capable of being self-supporting and earning substantial incomes. The record indicates that the chancellor appears to have fully explored the available proof and arrived at the best possible conclusion considering the evidence submitted by the parties. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
