Jeffrey Jack Stroh v. Nancy Jane Zehr Stroh
221 So. 3d 399
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jeff and Nancy Stroh married in 2007 and separated in 2014; they consented to an irreconcilable-differences divorce and submitted property division and alimony to the chancery court.
- The chancery court found Nancy’s house and a 2.45-acre tract called “the Hill” were marital property; it treated other parcels and Jeff’s businesses as his separate property.
- The chancellor valued the Hill at $106,000, awarded Nancy $53,000 (half) payable over 29 months, and ordered a buyout procedure for a jointly‑owned sailboat; awarded Nancy $750/month permanent periodic alimony.
- Jeff appealed, asserting error in: (1) excluding Nancy’s residence from equitable distribution despite finding it marital; (2) equal division and valuation of the Hill; (3) not accounting for an alleged $7,000 sailboat-related debt; and (4) awarding periodic alimony rather than considering lump‑sum.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor on the Hill’s classification, valuation, and the sailboat‑debt ruling, but reversed and remanded as to (a) excluding Nancy’s residence from equitable distribution and (b) the alimony analysis (court must consider lump‑sum as an option and reassess in light of property division).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jeff) | Defendant's Argument (Nancy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nancy’s residence—found marital—was excluded properly from equitable distribution | Stipulation to each party retaining their homes did not bar the court from equitably adjusting value or crediting mortgage payments and contributions to Nancy’s home | Agreement precluded consideration; if not, Jeff had to prove increased market value from his improvements | Reversed: stipulation did not preclude equitable adjustment; remand to consider Jeff’s entitlement (e.g., credit for mortgage payments and contributions) |
| Whether the Hill was marital property and whether half the value to Nancy was appropriate | Argued Hill was separate (family gift/prior agreement) and half was excessive | Hill was acquired during marriage, paid during marriage, rezoned with Nancy’s involvement; one-half equitable | Affirmed: Hill is marital; one-half division not an abuse of discretion given contributions and facts |
| Whether the Hill valuation at $106,000 was erroneous | Appraiser and buyer value argued to be lower; contends chancellor misvalued | Expert appraiser’s higher value challenged for ignoring sewer/electrical limits; court averaged estimates | Affirmed: chancellor’s $106,000 valuation was supported by record and permissible credibility/weight determinations |
| Whether alimony award (permanent periodic $750/mo) was appropriate and whether lump‑sum should have been considered | Alimony inappropriate as marriage was short; court should have considered lump‑sum or reconsider alimony after property division | Periodic alimony supported by Armstrong factors; lump‑sum inappropriate per chancellor’s Cheatham rationale | Reversed in part: chancellor erred to rule Cheatham precluded lump‑sum; remand to reconsider alimony (periodic vs. lump‑sum) in light of property division and Armstrong factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (sets framework for equitable distribution of marital assets)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (requires consideration of factors for alimony awards)
- Lewis v. Pagel, 172 So. 3d 162 (Miss. 2015) (discusses lump‑sum alimony as an equalizer and interplay with equitable distribution)
- Carney v. Carney, 201 So. 3d 432 (Miss. 2016) (clarifies Cheatham’s role and that lump‑sum may be appropriate post‑division)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So. 2d 157 (Miss. 2000) (chancellor may award lump‑sum alimony to bring finality to economic relationship)
- Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So. 2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital and equal value of domestic/economic contributions)
- Creekmore v. Creekmore, 651 So. 2d 513 (Miss. 1995) (duration of marriage relevant to alimony considerations)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 864 So. 2d 934 (Miss. 2003) (illustrative precedent on percentage awards in property division)