Allgood v. Allgood, 2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 77

Claudia Allgood and Forrest Allgood married on June 17, 1978 and had three children, with the youngest Keller aged 16 at the time of divorce and living with Claudia.
Claudia, previously an elementary-school teacher, earned a master's in education in 1988 with financial support from her parents, while Forrest was an assistant district attorney.
Claudia temporarily relocated to Arkansas and filed for divorce, but the couple reconciled in May 1989 and again in 1990 after Claudia admitted an extramarital affair; a third child was born in 1992.
The couple separated permanently in February 2007 and pursued an irreconcilable-differences divorce, leaving property division and alimony to the chancery court after a one-day trial on October 3, 2009.
The chancery court classified assets, divided marital property, and denied Claudia alimony; Claudia appealed twenty-eight days after judgment.
On appeal, Claudia argued the property division improperly classified part of the marital home as Forrest’s separate property and that a campaign account should have been treated as marital property.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether property was properly identified, classified, and equitably distributed	Allgood contends improper classification or division of assets.	Allgood asserts proper classification; Forrest’s separate funds supported mortgage payoff and justified a larger share.	No abuse; assets properly classified and equitably distributed.
Whether alimony should have been awarded	Allgood seeks alimony due to unequal property division.	Forrest argues Claudia’s income and the property award suffice; alimony not warranted.	Alimony denied; property division and Claudia’s employment provided adequate means.

Boutwell v. Boutwell, 829 So.2d 1216 (Miss. 2002) (nonmarital assets may become marital if commingled or used for domestic purposes)
Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (assets acquired during marriage are marital unless shown to be separate)
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (Ferguson factors guiding equitable distribution)
Messer v. Messer, 850 So.2d 161 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (confirming Ferguson factors and classification guidance)
Singley v. Singley, 846 So.2d 1004 (Miss. 2002) (inheritance commingled with marital funds may be reconsidered in distribution)
Seymour v. Seymour, 960 So.2d 513 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (equitable distribution does not require equal division)
Gray v. Gray, 562 So.2d 79 (Miss. 1990) (alimony discretion; reasonable in amount and need not be automatic)
Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So.2d 806 (Miss. 2003) (alimony review is deferential; affirmed if supported by credible evidence)
Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623 (Miss. 2002) (support for reviewing chancellor's factual findings on equity)
Yancey v. Yancey, 752 So.2d 1006 (Miss. 1999) (family use can convert separate property)