Kimbrough v. Kimbrough
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 250
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Robert Earl Kimbrough and Bobbie Sue Kimbrough divorced on irreconcilable differences; Kaitlin Suzanne Kimbrough is the child.
- The chancellor decided property division and custody, granting Robert sole physical custody with Bobbie Sue having joint legal custody and visitation.
- Bobbie Sue appeals the custody award and portions of the property division; Robert cross-appeals challenging other property awards.
- Robert previously owned property including a pre-marriage house and a motorcycle-repair business; the court treated the house as marital and the business as Robert’s separate property.
- The trial addressed multiple assets (real property, vehicles, retirement, and personal property) and applied the Albright factors to custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody award—Was sole physical custody to Robert appropriate? | Kimbroughs’ evidence showed both parents capable; tender-years presumption and moral-fit factors weighed against Robert. | Robert was most able to provide stability and Kaitlin’s best interests favored his custody due to caregiving, stability, and Robert’s control of schedules. | No reversible error; custody awarded to Robert affirmed. |
| Property division—Was the overall division of marital property fair? | Bobbie Sue received a disproportionately small share of the home equity and assets were not equitably divided. | Court considered total assets; distribution was within wide discretion and overall equity favored Robert. | Yes; division affirmed as overall fair. |
| Classification/valuation of assets—Were the pre-marital assets and valuations properly treated? | Items acquired before the marriage (truck, motorcoach, four-wheeler) should be Robert’s separate property and not fully awarded to him. | Valuation used in Rule 8.05 statement was acceptable in absence of other evidence; classification as marital vs. separate was argued. | Yes; despite potential misclassification, findings were supported by the record and overall division was fair. |
| Albright factors—Did the chancellor properly apply Albright to Kaitlin’s best interests? | Weight of factors such as health, parenting capacity, and moral fitness should favor Bobbie Sue given Kaitlin’s welfare. | Evidence supported Robert’s greater willingness and capacity for primary care; several factors favored Robert. | Yes; substantial evidence supported the chancellor’s findings and the custody decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shoffner v. Shoffner, 909 So.2d 1245 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (equitable division of assets requires considering assets as a whole)
- Wells v. Wells, 800 So.2d 1239 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (overall property division; not required to divide every asset equally)
- Tillman v. Tillman, 716 So.2d 1090 (Miss.1998) (overall fair division permissible; not per-asset equality)
- Carr v. Carr, 480 So.2d 1120 (Miss.1985) (adultery as one factor among many in custody analysis)
- Copeland v. Copeland, 904 So.2d 1066 (Miss.2004) (tender-years doctrine weakened; focus on best interest with Albright factors)
- Beasley v. Scott, 900 So.2d 1217 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (parent’s use of medications not necessarily against custody rights)