Harmon v. Harmon, 141 So. 3d 37

Courtney and Linda Harmon married in 2006, lived first in Courtney’s West Point house, later in a newly built Starkville home; they separated in October 2010 and Linda filed for divorce in November 2010.
Linda alleged continuous name‑calling, degrading sexual comments, baseless adultery accusations, stalking (including frequent appearances at her workplace and following her), and excessive gambling; these actions affected her health and prompted criminal stalking/harassment convictions before the final judgment.
Courtney denied most abusive conduct, disputed the severity of his gambling, and asserted he did not want a divorce.
The chancery court granted Linda a divorce on the ground of habitual cruelty and made an equitable division of marital assets: Linda awarded the Starkville home and certain personal property; Courtney retained the West Point home as separate property and received specific vehicles and retirement assets.
On appeal, Courtney challenged (1) the sufficiency of evidence supporting cruelty and (2) the chancellor’s property distribution (asserting entitlement to the Starkville home or its equity and complaining the West Point home was not properly allocated).

Issue	Harmon (Plaintiff/Appellant) Argument	Linda (Defendant/Appellee) Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported divorce for habitual cruel and inhuman treatment	Courtney argued the conduct did not meet statutory cruelty—no physical violence and alleged facts insufficient	Linda argued cumulative routine and continuous verbal abuse, stalking, gambling, and resulting health harm made marriage revolting to her	Court affirmed: cumulative pattern (name‑calling, stalking, gambling, health impact) met cruelty standard under Mississippi law
Whether the West Point home was marital property subject to division	Courtney contended the chancery failed to award him the West Point house (or otherwise erred)	Linda did not contest classification; chancery found West Point house was Courtney’s separate property	Court affirmed that the West Point home was properly classified as Courtney’s separate property and that he received it
Whether the Starkville home and marital assets were equitably divided	Courtney argued he was entitled to ownership or equity in the Starkville home and that distribution was inequitable	Chancellor found Linda made greater financial contributions, paid most mortgage obligations, had emotional ties, and Courtney’s gambling/unemployment lessened his claim	Court affirmed the Ferguson‑factor analysis and the award of the Starkville home to Linda as an equitable distribution

Smith v. Smith, 90 So.3d 1259 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standards for cruelty and appellate review of chancery findings)
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (Ferguson factors governing equitable distribution)
Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (definition of marital vs. separate property)
Jackson v. Jackson, 922 So.2d 53 (Miss. Ct. App.) (routine and continuous conduct required for nonphysical cruelty)
Faries v. Faries, 607 So.2d 1204 (Miss. 1992) (subjective focus on effect of conduct on offended spouse)
Berryman v. Berryman, 907 So.2d 944 (Miss. Ct. App.) (spouse’s substantial financial contributions to residence support sole ownership award)
Morris v. Morris, 5 So.3d 476 (Miss. Ct. App.) (title not dispositive in equitable distribution)
Carrow v. Carrow, 642 So.2d 901 (Miss. 1994) (chancellor may look behind formal title in property division)
Carter v. Carter, 98 So.3d 1109 (Miss. Ct. App.) (appellate review defers to chancellor’s Ferguson findings)