Collins v. Collins
112 So. 3d 428
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Perry and Iretha Collins filed for a no-fault divorce in 2005 and have a daughter, Jer-mylia.
- They owned three businesses: Collins Realty (rental units), Collins Heating and Air (Perry), and Abundance of Life daycare (Iretha).
- After separation in 2006, they divided assets and asked the chancellor to decide asset division, alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees.
- The trial court awarded the marital home and the heating/air building to Perry, the daycare and rental units to Iretha, and ordered $1,300 monthly child support; no alimony or fees.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, except for one rental-income issue; held error harmless; certiorari granted on two issues.
- Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new calculation of Perry’s income including a proper demarcation of marital property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper calculation of Perry's gross income for child support | Perry argues the chancellor ignored credible evidence and improperly counted rental income. | Iretha argues the income calculation was supported by the record and statutory guidelines. | Remand for new income calculation; exclude future rental income from Perry's income. |
| Designation of the demarcation date for marital property | Perry contends the date of divorce should mark the demarcation between marital and separate property. | Iretha contends temporary orders may indicate demarcation; courts should consider such dates as appropriate. | Divorce date affirmed as the demarcation when appropriate; remand if the demarcation date remains disputed and unrecorded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So.3d 274 (Miss. 2009) (demarcation timing can be at separation or divorce)
- Selman v. Selman, 722 So.2d 547 (Miss. 1998) (ends of marriage for asset allocation precede formal termination)
- Cuccia v. Cuccia, 90 So.3d 1228 (Miss. 2012) (requires explicit statement of demarcation date)
- Wheat v. Wheat, 37 So.3d 632 (Miss. 2010) (temporary orders may indicate demarcation point)
- Pittman v. Pittman, 791 So.2d 857 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (held temporary orders always demarcation (overruled in part))
- Godwin v. Godwin, 758 So.2d 384 (Miss. 1999) (temporary vs. separate maintenance orders; not directly about temp orders as demarcation)