Carter v. Carter
98 So. 3d 1109
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Prenuptial agreement preserved Linda's separate property; Linda had $800/mo income and no separate assets, William had $2,200/mo disability income and $108,000 retirement; marital assets consisted of a home ($43,000) with $49,000 debt and a lot ($9,500); Linda previously owned a lot and a manufactured home and sold her prior home for $4,000 to finance a new marital home; the court awarded Linda the home and lot and split the marital debt, with an initial erroneous credit to Linda of $15,000 for her separate property; the chancellor later corrected to an $11,000 credit, ordering William to pay the majority of the debt; the court reversed and remanded for reevaluation of the distribution and potential alimony; Linda was awarded sole custody of their child, and alimony was deemed unnecessary under the initial distribution
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Ferguson application to property award | Linda argues Ferguson factors justify her receiving the assets | William argues Ferguson supports a more balanced or other distribution | Ferguson applied correctly; Linda warranted the assets |
| Credit for Linda's separate property | Linda asserts $11,000 credit reflects her separate property value | William contends $11,000 overstates the value | Credit of $11,000 is clearly erroneous; should be $4,000 |
| Impact of credit error on overall distribution | Error in credit should not alter equitable distribution | Error requires recalculation of all financial aspects | Error requires remand and reevaluation of the entire equitable distribution, including alimony if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Johnson, 650 So.2d 1281 (Miss. 1994) (determine marital vs nonmarital assets and Ferguson-guided distribution)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (establishes Ferguson factors for equitable distribution)
- Seymour v. Seymour, 960 So.2d 513 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (illustrates leeway in distribution based on circumstances and income/assets)
- Lauro v. Lauro, 847 So.2d 843 (Miss. 2003) (remand of entire financial settlement when classification/credit errors occur)
- Singley v. Singley, 846 So.2d 1004 (Miss. 2002) (FMV standard for assets; marital fault considerations in distribution)
- Phillips v. Phillips, 904 So.2d 999 (Miss. 2004) (court may award disproportionate shares under Ferguson if warranted)
- Goellner v. Goellner, 11 So.3d 1251 (Miss.Ct.App. 2009) (cited for Ferguson framework and reviewing standards)
- Vaughn v. Vaughn, 56 So.3d 1283 (Miss.Ct.App. 2011) (review of Ferguson factors without redoing anew)