Berryman v. Berryman
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01965-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01965-SCT ; 2003-CT-01965-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-24-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable distribution of marital assets Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-02-2003 Appealed from: Tate County Chancery Court Judge: Mitchell M. Lundy, Jr. Disposition: JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE ENTERED DIVIDING MARITAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. Case Number: 02-07-270 (ML) |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/HDList/..%5COPINIONS%5CCO26691.PDF . | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Perry Leon Berryman |
MARY LYNN WILLIAMS DAMARE' |
||
| Appellee: | Katherine Lynn (Hibbett)(Snyder) Berryman | H. R. GARNER |
|
|
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: | Perry and Katherine Berryman were granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The chancellor divided the marital property, but declined to award alimony or attorney's fees to either party. Perry appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Perry argues that the chancellor erred in awarding certain commingled marital property and marital assets solely to Katherine, resulting in an inequitable distribution of the assets. Assets acquired or accumulated during the course of the marriage are marital assets and are subject to an equitable distribution. Perry argues that the marital residence should not have been awarded solely to Katherine. The chancellor found that based on the uncontradicted fact that Katherine contributed $145,000 to the acquisition of the marital residence, equity demands that she be entitled to the sole ownership of the residence or the proceeds from the sale thereof, less the two mortgages. Therefore, the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in awarding Katherine sole ownership of the marital property. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
