Carney v. Carney
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00646-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00646-COA ; 2010-CT-00646-SCT ; 2010-CT-00646-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-09-2013 |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-29-2012 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Divorce: Irreconcilable differences - Equitable division of marital assets - Equity in home - Social security benefits Judge(s) Concurring: Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Lee, C.J. and Irving, P.J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, Maxwell and Fair, JJ., Concur in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2010 Appealed from: Warren County Chancery Court Judge: Vicki Barnes Disposition: APPELLEE RECEIVED $186,052.57 EQUITY IN MARITAL HOME Case Number: 2008-371-GN |
|
| Note: | On May 9, 2013, the Supreme Court found the Appellant's argument that all assets must or can be valued prior to equitable distribution where no means of valuation exists was incorrect. Nevertheless, it agreed with the Court of Appeals’ holding that, even if the chancellor erred by distributing the Appellant's benefits to him despite their unknown value, the error was harmless because no monetary amount was awarded. The SCT opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO84742.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Howard Wilson Carney, III |
CLIFFORD C. WHITNEY III
J. MACK VARNER |
|
|
| Appellee: | Andrea Leigh Bell Carney | TRAVIS T. VANCE JR. | ||
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 division of marital assets - Equity in home - Social security benefits |
| Summary of the Facts: | Andrea Carney filed a complaint for divorce from Howard Carney on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and/or irreconcilable differences. Andrea filed an amended complaint for divorce on the grounds of adultery, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and/or irreconcilable differences. Howard filed a counter-complaint for divorce on the grounds of uncondoned adultery, habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and/or irreconcilable differences. The parties later filed a consent withdrawing fault grounds and consenting to a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. The parties asked the chancellor to determine the following issues: child support; alimony; equitable distribution of assets; and attorney’s fees. The court entered a memorandum opinion and final judgment of divorce based on irreconcilable differences. The chancellor awarded Andrea full use, title, and possession of the marital home, to include one-hundred percent of the equity in the home. Howard appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Howard argues that the chancellor’s award of the entire amount of the equity in the home to Andrea was not supported by credible evidence. Assets acquired or accumulated during the course of a marriage are subject to equitable distribution 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. As such, the chancellor may equitably divide only the property that is deemed marital property. Assets which are classified as non-marital, such as inheritances, may be converted into marital assets if they are commingles with marital property or utilized for domestic purposes, absent an agreement to the contrary. In this case, the chancellor properly determined that the equity in the house is a marital asset under the family-use doctrine and due to the commingling of assets. There is no requirement that one spouse must receive half of the equity in the marital home. Rather, the goal as it pertains to equitable division is a fair division of marital property based on the facts of each case. The record in this case shows credible evidence supporting the chancellor’s exercise of discretion in equitably dividing the parties’ marital property and awarding Andrea the entire amount of the equity from the marital home. Howard also argues that the chancellor erred by including his social security benefits in the marital assets equitably distributed to Howard with a notation reading “actual value unknown.” Because there was no value assigned to his social security benefits and no specific monetary amount awarded, any error regarding the award of future eligibility of social security benefits would be harmless. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
