Cox v. Cox
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 30
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Suzanne and Larry Cox divorced in Hinds County; divorce granted on irreconcilable differences.
- Larry owned Steel Service Corporation (SSC) and other steel-related businesses; Suzanne was a homemaker then real estate agent.
- Valuation date was December 31, 2005; Grantham Poole CPA valued SSC with a 50% lack-of-marketability discount and added a lawsuit value.
- Chancellor found SSC appreciated no value during marriage after applying discounts; Suzanne claimed retroactive discounts and other assets (3-Design patents, airplane) were marital.
- Suzanne argued for larger marital estate share and alimony; court denied alimony, allocated 25% of estate to Suzanne, affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSC valuation and marital appreciation | Suzanne: SSC appreciated during marriage; discount applied improperly. | Larry: SSC preexisted; no marital appreciation; discount retroactivity contested. | Appellate affirms chancellor's valuation and no retroactive 1990 discount. |
| Treatment of patents in 3-Design valuation | Patents should be valued and included separate from goodwill. | Patents not included due to lack of evidence; goodwill exclusion upheld. | Valuation supported; patents not added due to lack of evidence. |
| Value of Larry's airplane as marital asset | If appreciated, airplane should be marital property. | Plane purchased with separate funds; depreciating asset; no appreciation. | No abuse; chancellor correctly treated plane as non-marital. |
| Share of marital estate and Ferguson factors | Suzanne entitled to larger share due to indirect contributions and other factors. | Larry's pre-marital wealth and Suzanne's limited indirect contributions justify 25%. | No reversible error; 25% allocation upheld as within discretion. |
| Alimony | Suzanne unemployed and health concerns justify alimony. | Suzanne's ability to earn, fault, and dissipation reduce need for alimony. | No alimony awarded; supported by Armstrong factors and fault findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss.1994) (eight Ferguson factors for equitable division of marital property)
- Singley v. Singley, 846 So.2d 1004 (Miss.2002) (goodwill not included in marital estate valuation)
- Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss.1994) (assets acquired during marriage subject to equitable division)
- Adcock v. Mississippi Transportation Commission, 981 So.2d 942 (Miss.2008) (three approaches to fair market value; expert testimony admissible if grounded in method)
- Messer v. Messer, 850 So.2d 161 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (guidance on division when assets are intertwined with non-marital property)
- Allied Steel Corp. v. Cooper, 607 So.2d 113 (Miss.1992) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings)
- Rush v. Rush, 932 So.2d 800 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (dissipation and spousal support considerations in alimony)
- Irby v. Estate of Irby, 7 So.3d 223 (Miss.2009) (trial court may rely on best information available when evidence is incomplete)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss.1993) (twelve factors for alimony determinations)
- Redd v. Redd, 774 So.2d 492 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (indirect contributions; remand due to valuation errors)