Carney v. Carney, 112 So. 3d 435

Howard Carney III and Andrea Bell Carney divorced in Warren County, with two children born of the marriage.
Chancery Court determined child support, allocated some marital assets, considered alimony but did not award it, and ordered Howard to pay $5,000 toward Andrea’s attorney’s fees.
The chancellor awarded Andrea full use, title, and possession of the marital home, including 100 percent of its equity, after determining the home to be marital due to commingling and marital use.
Andrea funded the Bell Property down payment from life-insurance proceeds she received; the property was later appraised at $253,800 with certain mortgage balances remaining at the time of divorce.
Total net marital estate was valued at $237,503.72, with Andrea receiving $224,050.57 and Howard $13,453.13; the court’s treatment of funds from Andrea’s sister as nonmarital caused a disparity in distribution.
Howard appealed, challenging the equitable distribution and the treatment of his unvalued Social Security benefits; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari on these two issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the marital estate equitably distributed?	Carney argues the chancellor misclassified funds as nonmarital and awarded Andrea exclusive equity in the home without a warranted offset to Howard.	Carney contends the court correctly applied Ferguson factors but failed to justify the disparity in distribution.	Reversed and remanded for equitable distribution.
Did the chancellor err in including unvalued Social Security benefits in Howard's equitable share?	Carney asserts Ferguson requires valuing assets prior to distribution; Scott is inapplicable to social security valuation.	Carney argues valuation was not possible and that any error was harmless since no monetary amount was awarded.	Merits is denied; harmless error; affirmed on this issue.

Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (standard for appellate review of domestic relations awards)
Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281 (Miss. 1994) (commingling of nonmarital funds with marital estate requires adjustment)
Singley v. Singley, 846 So.2d 1004 (Miss. 2002) (recognizes possible adjustment in Ferguson distribution based on source and use of funds)
Gutierrez v. Bucci, 827 So.2d 27 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (nonmarital asset dissipation considerations in division)
Scott v. Scott, 835 So.2d 82 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (valuation issues (assets) inform reversible error analysis when valuation is feasible)
McKee v. McKee, 418 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1982) (procedural guidance for awarding additional attorney’s fees)