Rhodes v. Rhodes
52 So. 3d 430
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Rocky Rhodes and Stacey Rhodes obtained an irreconcilable-differences divorce in Harrison County Chancery Court.
- Rocky bought a Florida vacation home in 2000 (pre-marriage); the couple married in 2003 and used the home extensively.
- Chancellor classified the vacation home as Rocky’s separate property, despite substantial family use and contributions by Stacey.
- The court applied the family-use doctrine to real property and remanded for reconsideration of the equitable division.
- Stacey contends RCD and related assets were marital or increased in value due to active spousal efforts; the court’s ruling on several asset classifications is reversed or remanded.
- The opinion addresses alimony, attorney’s fees, and the broader framework of Ferguson-based equitable distribution, with an emphasis on property classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Florida vacation home is marital property | Stacey argues family useConverted the home to marital property | Rocky contends the home remained Rocky's separate property | Vacation home is marital property; remand for equitable division |
| Whether Rhodes Carpet & Draperies (RCD) was marital property or Rocky’s separate property | Stacey asserts RCD is mixed, with significant marital value | Rocky argues RCD is his separate property | RCD largely Rocky’s separate property; some components may be marital; issue remanded for valuation considering goodwill and active efforts |
| Whether the Ocean Club condominium was Rocky’s separate property | Stacey argues it is marital because titled in Rocky’s name | Condominium was a corporate asset mis-titled; not marital | Condo remains Rocky’s separate property |
| Whether Stacey’s expert should have been admitted | Angle’s testimony was admissible accounting valuation without goodwill exclusion | Angle’s methodology improperly included goodwill per Yelverton/Singles | Exclusion of Angle based on goodwill was upheld but deemed harmless error; majority reverses on other grounds |
| Whether rehabilitative alimony was properly calculated | Stacey seeks weight given Armstrong factors and health | Chancellor’s discretion adequate given remand on distribution | Alimony affirmed as rehabilitative; remand limited to financial distribution issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Hemsley v. Hemsley, 639 So.2d 909 (Miss.1994) (definition of marital property; active vs passive appreciation)
- Craft v. Craft, 825 So.2d 605 (Miss.2002) (active vs passive appreciation in marital property)
- Grantham v. Grantham, 747 So.2d 832 (Miss.1999) (active/passive appreciation framework)
- Pearson v. Pearson, 761 So.2d 157 (Miss.2000) (look behind title; property classification standard)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 864 So.2d 934 (Miss.2003) (family-use doctrine applied to family home)
- Pittman v. Pittman, 791 So.2d 857 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (family-use doctrine; inheritance/gift considerations)
- Yelverton v. Yelverton, 961 So.2d 19 (Miss.2007) (exclusion of goodwill from valuation in divorce)
- Singley v. Singley, 846 So.2d 1004 (Miss.2002) (goodwill not included in valuation; professional practice context)
- Watson v. Watson, 882 So.2d 95 (Miss.2004) (clarified scope of goodwill exclusion; broader than solo practice)