Pierce v. Pierce
132 So. 3d 553
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Martin and Star Pierce, married in 2000, divorced by a Washington court in 2007 which lacked personal jurisdiction over Star and thus did not divide assets.
- Martin filed in Mississippi chancery court seeking sale of the Biloxi home and debt allocation; Star counterclaimed for equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney’s fees.
- Chancery court equitably divided assets and awarded Star alimony and attorney’s fees; Court of Appeals reversed the property division and remanded.
- On remand, Martin argued Washington decree was res judicata and challenged personal jurisdiction under FUSFSPA; chancery court held subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over Martin.
- Chancellor on remand ordered sale of the home and awarded Star portions of retirement and thrift savings, rehabilitative alimony, and fees; Martin appeals.
- Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding Washington lacked personal jurisdiction over Star, the decree did not control Mississippi claims, and Martin consented to Mississippi jurisdiction under FUSFSPA by participating and appealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington decree bars Mississippi equitable distribution and alimony | Pierce—decree res judicata on Star's claims | Pierce—Mississippi court can adjudicate once the foreign court lacks jurisdiction | Washington decree not res judicata; Mississippi court had jurisdiction |
| Whether chancery court lacked personal jurisdiction over Martin for FUSFSPA | Martin did not consent to Mississippi jurisdiction | Mart in general appearance; consent by filing suit; waiver by not objecting timely | Martin consented to jurisdiction under FUSFSPA; court could divide retirement benefits |
| Whether the equity split and alimony awarded were proper under Ferguson factors | Split favored Star unreasonably; alimony too generous or misapplied | Chancellor properly considered factors and constraints, including Star’s health and earning capacity | Chancellor followed Ferguson factors; no abuse of discretion in distribution or rehabilitative alimony |
| Whether attorney’s fees/ sanctions were proper | Fees under partition statutes; sanctions for misrepresentation | Not a partition; McKee applies; sanctions procedurally barred | No reversal; partition statute not applicable; sanctions issue procedurally barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiss v. Weiss, 579 So.2d 539 (Miss. 1991) (foreign-divorce alimony not res judicata if not decided on the merits)
- Lofton v. Lofton, 924 So.2d 596 (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (consent and lack of personal jurisdiction affect res judicata in foreign-divorce context)
- Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1948) (Full Faith and Credit; foreign divorce may be severable from alimony rights)
- Petters v. Petters, 560 So.2d 722 (Miss. 1990) (FUSFSPA jurisdictional waiver doctrine; waiver through general appearance)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So.2d 921 (Miss. 1994) (establishes Ferguson factors for equitable distribution)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So.2d 1278 (Miss. 1993) (sets Armstrong factors for alimony)