53 So. 3d 832
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Darlene Jones and Herbert Mayo divorced in January 2005; the marital estate consisted mainly of retirement accounts and $23,000 state pension for Darlene and $82,449 in ERISA accounts for Herbert, totaling $139,637.
- Special Chancellor Thomas proposed equal division, yielding a final Judgment awarding Darlene $36,488.50, with the aim of avoiding tax consequences and keeping an equal share overall.
- Herbert attempted in February 2005 to satisfy the judgment by transferring $36,488.50 from his retirement via a QDRO, but Darlene refused to sign the QDRO documents for cash payment.
- A 60(b) dispute arose; in 2005, Herbert sought relief under Rule 60 to satisfy via retirement funds, and a new chancellor (McKenzie) later clarified the judgment’s intent to avoid tax consequences.
- In June 2009, the chancellor held that the original omission could be corrected under Rule 60(a) to allow satisfaction through a QDRO, and denied Darlene interest on the balance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(a) relief was proper to clarify the judgment | Jones asserts Rule 60(a) cannot alter the judgment. | Mayo contends Rule 60(a) clarifies an omission to effect intent without changing the judgment. | Yes; Rule 60(a) proper to reflect original intent by permitting QDRO satisfaction. |
| Whether allowing QDRO satisfaction aligns with equal-distribution intent and tax avoidance | Jones argues cash payment was only proper. | Mayo argues QDRO achieves equal sharing and avoids tax penalties. | Yes; QDRO satisfies the balance without tax consequences, aligning with intent. |
| Whether interest on the remaining balance should be awarded | Jones seeks interest on the balance under the 2005 judgment. | Mayo contends earlier attempts to satisfy via QDRO negate continued interest. | No; interest denied because proposed QDRO satisfaction was contemplated and attempted soon after judgment. |
| Whether contempt or attorney’s fees issues were properly raised on appeal | Jones urges contempt and fees due to noncompliance. | Mayo asserts proper procedure and lack of timely notice; fees were not properly raised. | Affirmed; issues improper for appeal or lack of proper notice and proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seymour v. Seymour, 869 So.2d 1035 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (Rule 60(a) correction of oversight to reflect original decision)
- Edwards v. Roberts, 771 So.2d 378 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (clarification of judgment within Rule 60(a) scope)
- In re Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 406 (5th Cir.2009) (law-of-the-case doctrine and successor-judge authority)
- Holmes v. Bates, 218 Miss. 233, 67 So.2d 273 (Miss. 1953) (contempt/offset considerations in judgment enforcement)
- Vincent v. Griffin, 872 So.2d 676 (Miss.2004) (due process requires notice for contempt charges and fee requests)