Nichols v. Funderburk
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00087-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00087-SCT ; 2002-CT-00087-SCT ; 2002-CT-00087-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-04-2003 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Cohabitation - Equitable division of property - Age - Section 15-1-59 - Constructive trust Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Irving and Chandler, JJ. Dissenting Author : Lee, J. Dissent Joined By : King, P.J., Thomas and Myers, JJ. Bridges, J. joins in part. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-21-2001 Appealed from: Itawamba County Chancery Court Judge: Jacqueline Mask Disposition: CHANCELLOR AWARDED CUSTODY OF TWO MINOR CHILDREN TO MOTHER AND ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT BUT DENIED HER REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE DIVISION OF PROPERTY. Case Number: 01-0165 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lori Nichols |
ANGELA NEWSOM SNYDER |
||
| Appellee: | David Wayne Funderburk | 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: | Cohabitation - Equitable division of property - Age - Section 15-1-59 - Constructive trust |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lori Nichols filed a complaint for paternity, child support and an equitable division of property against David Funderburk. The chancellor found that David was the father of their two children, granted custody of the children and child support to Lori, restricted David’s visitation with the children, and denied Lori’s claim for an equitable division of property. Lori appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable division Lori argues that she is entitled to an equitable division of property, because of her financial contribution during the couple’s cohabitation. Incident to a divorce, the chancery court has authority to order a fair division of property accumulated through the joint contributions and efforts of the parties. The ceremony of marriage or some appearance of marriage is essential to the equitable division. Here, Lori and David never married or purported to have married. The chancellor's opinion that no jointly acquired assets existed was supported by the facts from the record. Although David owned a restaurant and apartment complex, Lori had absolutely no ownership interest in either asset. Therefore, the chancellor properly rejected Lori's claims for equitable division. Issue 2: Age Lori argues that her minority at the time she began her relationship and cohabitation with David obligates courts of this State to protect her. Section 15-1-59 provides a savings clause for minors, tolling the applicable statutes of limitation until the child reaches the age of majority. Lori waited until she was twenty-seven years old to seek the aid or protection of the courts, well after she reached the age of majority and not within the three year statute of limitations for any claim she may have had. Issue 3: Constructive trust Lori argues that because she worked and contributed to all of the businesses and the home, David held these properties in a constructive trust for her. A constructive trust will generally be raised where, at the time the promise is made, the grantee does not intend to perform it, or it is intentionally false, or where confidential relationships exist between the parties and there is no other consideration for the conveyance except the promise, or where the promise is the inducing cause of the conveyance, no other consideration being given, and is relied on by the grantor. Although there was testimony that David promised to marry Lori, the record does not show that he ever promised to convey any ownership interest in these properties. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
