95 So. 3d 733
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Gary and Celeste Marter married 1978 in Grenada County, Mississippi; separated in 2008; Celeste sought divorce on grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment or irreconcilable differences.
- Gary counterclaimed for divorce on grounds including habitual cruelty, adultery, drug use, desertion, or irreconcilable differences; both consented to divorce on irreconcilable differences and asked the court to decide property, alimony, and attorneys’ fees.
- Chancery Court granted divorce on irreconcilable differences, divided marital property, found Celeste not entitled to alimony and neither party entitled to attorneys’ fees; motions to reconsider led to amended orders and notices of appeal.
- Dispute on property: 120 acres in Grenada County; Celeste inherited 60 acres; sister held 60 acres; property deed later held as joint tenants; court treated 60 acres as Celeste’s separate property and 60 acres as marital.
- A workshop on the property was valued by Gary and treated by the court as a fixture passing with Celeste’s property; vehicles were divided between the parties, with Gary’s Infiniti deduction affecting cash assets.
- Gary later argued the court miscalculated cash assets by deducting Infiniti value instead of Gary’s subsequent Murano purchase; Celeste sought correction of judgment; Rule 60 issues arose regarding amendments to the reconsideration order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property classification of Celeste’s 60 acres | Marter contends commingling converted Celeste’s separate property to marital. | Marter argues title and commingling principles require marital classification. | 60 acres remains Celeste’s separate property; no conversion to marital. |
| Valuation of 120 acres and workshop | Marter asserts court failed to value trees and workshop separately and undervalued the property. | Marter claims valuation should reflect trees and workshop; court inadequately explained 120-acre value. | Reversed and remanded for proper valuation including trees and workshop. |
| Motion to correct judgment under Rule 60 | Marter argues chancery court lacked jurisdiction to amend after notice of appeal and post-appeal timing. | Marter contends court properly treated Celeste’s motion under Rule 60; but timing issues affect jurisdiction. | Chancery court’s amended order vacated; lacked jurisdiction to amend post-appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss. 1994) (definition of marital property and equitable distribution)
- Ory v. Ory, 936 So.2d 405 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (separate property may become marital by commingling)
- Hankins v. Hankins, 866 So.2d 508 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (property maintenance activity not automatically transmuting separate property)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So.2d 157 (Miss. 2000) (rejecting title theory in determining marital property)
- Brock v. Brock, 906 So.2d 879 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (tax payments traceable and do not transmute property)
- Jenkins v. Jenkins, 67 So.3d 5 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (chancellor must base division on fair market value; valuation may rely on disclosures or testimony)
- King v. King, 946 So.2d 395 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (valuation as initial step in property division)
- Carlisle v. Allen, 40 So.3d 1252 (Miss. 2010) (treatment of Rule 59/e vs Rule 60 motions in reconsideration timing)
- Cannon v. Cannon, 571 So.2d 976 (Miss. 1990) (timing for treating motions for reconsideration and appeal)