Denise L. Inge v. Evie Inge
227 So. 3d 1185
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Denise and Evie Inge married in 1976; Denise filed for divorce in 2001 after long marital separation; the case remained pending for >14 years until the parties consented to an irreconcilable-differences divorce and submitted equitable division to the chancellor.
- Both worked during the marriage; Evie retired from UPS (receives retirement and Social Security); Denise stopped working in 2001 due to disability and receives disability benefits and a smaller future retirement benefit.
- Evie moved out circa 2000, continued making mortgage payments until the mortgage was paid off in 2007; both made contributions to the marital home and Denise made later improvements (claimed payments to a contractor but limited documentation).
- The marital home appraised at $170,000 (unencumbered); Evie owns a separately titled home valued at $74,500.
- Chancellor awarded each party their respective retirement accounts, awarded Denise the marital home but required her to pay Evie $45,000 for his interest (or list the home for sale and pay Evie $45,000 from proceeds). Denise appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Denise) | Defendant's Argument (Evie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chancellor failed to consider Ferguson factor 7 (needs for financial security) | Chancellor omitted explicit discussion of factor 7; Denise has limited income and cannot afford the buyout | Chancellor considered related factor 6 and parties' circumstances; order takes relative finances into account by awarding less than ~27% of home value | Court: No reversible error; factor 6 analysis and overall consideration suffice; division not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether chancellor erred in characterization of Denise’s lump-sum payment under Ferguson factor 2 | The $23,000 was disability back-pay, not a retirement withdrawal; mischaracterization affected analysis | Evie concedes mischaracterization but argues it’s harmless and didn’t affect outcome | Court: Mischaracterization was harmless error given age of transaction, no weight attributed, and no impact on ultimate division |
| Whether court failed to value/allocate retirement benefits adequately | Chancellor did not make on-the-record present-value findings for vested future retirement benefits; Denise claims imbalance | Chancellor treated retirement accounts as marital assets and awarded each party their own benefits; parties presented no present-value evidence | Court: No abuse of discretion; courts consider assets as a whole and chancellor need not calculate present values absent evidence |
| Whether the buyout amount for Evie’s interest in the home was excessive | $45,000 is too high given Denise’s finances | Amount is less than 27% of $170,000; home is unencumbered and Denise could mortgage if needed; Evie has separate housing | Court: Buyout amount is equitable under Ferguson factors; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (establishes multi-factor test for equitable distribution of marital property)
- Everett v. Everett, 919 So. 2d 242 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (upheld buyout ordering when marital home unencumbered; party may mortgage property to comply)
- Dogan v. Dogan, 98 So. 3d 1115 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (property division must be judged on equitable division of marital assets as a whole)
- Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 2003) (standard of review: chancery court property-division reviewed for abuse of discretion)